Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Of course people are allowed to withdraw a MoNC or remove their name. This is possible and the process will stop tonight.

    It is also ridiculous to consider an incomplete VoNC as triggering the two-week buffer period. This will not be triggered tonight.

    There is nothing stopping other people from submitting another MoNC now – there's no reason given everyone now knows this is going to be withdrawn for it not to be able to go up this evening. If an identical MoNC is submitted then I will exercise discretion as to how much debate time is required.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I am happy to propose an identical MoNC. cBay has already said he will second, as has cranbrook, and QQ, so one more is needed. EricAteYou SoggyCabbages Mactotaur Unown Uzer Kay_Winters
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Of course people are allowed to withdraw a MoNC or remove their name. This is possible and the process will stop tonight.

    It is also ridiculous to consider an incomplete VoNC as triggering the two-week buffer period. This will not be triggered tonight.

    There is nothing stopping other people from submitting another MoNC now – there's no reason given everyone now knows this is going to be withdrawn for it not to be able to go up this evening. If an identical MoNC is submitted then I will exercise discretion as to how much debate time is required.
    So you're saying that there was no motion, or that as well as ignoring the implicit according to some also the explicit statement not only of the GD but also the constitution?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Motion of No Confidence in the Government
    Proposed by: TheDefiniteArticle MP (Soc)
    Seconded by: cranbrook_aspie MP (Lab), cBay MP (Grn), DMcGovern MP (Soc), Quamquam123 MP (Lab)

    This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.

    Over 90 days have passed since the opening of the 23rd Parliament, the Government has created five bills; has failed to produce a budget in the 90 days’ deadline it set itself; 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; 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.

    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.



    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.

    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.

    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!’


    Saracen's Fez, I would like to submit this MoNC in the government.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    It is also ridiculous to consider an incomplete VoNC as triggering the two-week buffer period. This will not be triggered tonight.
    Ridiculous? Seriously?

    According to the Constitution, a motion of no confidence can be called in the government at any time, unless less than two weeks have passed since the previous motion of no confidence in that position ended.

    Was this a motion of no confidence? Yes, it was.

    Did it end (by losing the support of the primary proposer and one of the seconders)? Yes, it did, according to you.

    According to the Guidance Document, a motion of no confidence can be called against the government at any point during a term of governance unless the government was formed less than two weeks prior to the motion, or less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government.

    This means you can accept another MoNC in the government in about eleven days.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Ridiculous? Seriously?

    According to the Constitution, a motion of no confidence can be called in the government at any time, unless less than two weeks have passed since the previous motion of no confidence in that position ended.

    Was this a motion of no confidence? Yes, it was.

    Did it end (by losing the support of the primary proposer and one of the seconders)? Yes, it did, according to you.

    According to the Guidance Document, a motion of no confidence can be called against the government at any point during a term of governance unless the government was formed less than two weeks prior to the motion, or less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government.

    This means you can accept another MoNC in the government in about eleven days.
    Please note, Mr Speaker, that the withdrawal was planned from the start, and the Tory party was in on it. This is a deliberate attempt at downright cheating and should have consequences.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Please note, Mr Speaker, that the withdrawal was planned from the start, and the Tory party was in on it. This is a deliberate attempt at downright cheating and should have consequences.
    As should making baseless statements, unless you happen to have evidence to share?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Please note, Mr Speaker, that the withdrawal was planned from the start, and the Tory party was in on it. This is a deliberate attempt at downright cheating and should have consequences.
    And who's told you that? Two members on Skype, which shouldn't even be used here... And both those who may have said that, aren't even part of our Party...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As should making baseless statements, unless you happen to have evidence to share?
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    And who's told you that? Two members on Skype, which shouldn't even be used here... And both those who may have said that, aren't even part of our Party...
    I have evidence, and I don't see why Skype shouldn't be valid for that. If Nigel informed any member of the Tory party, the Tory party was in compliance with that and was thus deliberately attempting to cheat, essentially by the method described above of engaging the two-week buffer (which is borne out by LP's posts ITT), I assume.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I have evidence, and I don't see why Skype shouldn't be valid for that. If Nigel informed any member of the Tory party, the Tory party was in compliance with that and was thus deliberately attempting to cheat, essentially by the method described above of engaging the two-week buffer (which is borne out by LP's posts ITT), I assume.
    Actually, if Nigel told any member of the Tory party that an MoNC was being launched against us, what are you supposing we do... if we were told, that doesn't make us compliant, especially in something, where we can't just turn around and stop it happening if that's what they want.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Please note, Mr Speaker, that the withdrawal was planned from the start, and the Tory party was in on it. This is a deliberate attempt at downright cheating and should have consequences.
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I have evidence, and I don't see why Skype shouldn't be valid for that. If Nigel informed any member of the Tory party, the Tory party was in compliance with that and was thus deliberately attempting to cheat, essentially by the method described above of engaging the two-week buffer (which is borne out by LP's posts ITT), I assume.
    Cheat? You must be ****ing kidding me. :laugh: Moves like this would all be within the rules and they're called politicking or simply strategy. It's practically the same as talking someone else into submitting an MoNC so that you don't take the blame if it backfires, which is what quackquack attempted to do.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It appears the government were pre-empting a MoNC anyway and have tried to give themselves a 2 week buffer to get that budget out. Disappointing if true.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Actually, if Nigel told any member of the Tory party that an MoNC was being launched against us, what are you supposing we do... if we were told, that doesn't make us compliant, especially in something, where we can't just turn around and stop it happening if that's what they want.
    He told you that the plan was to withdraw the MoNC according to him.

    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Cheat? You must be ****ing kidding me. :laugh: Moves like this would all be within the rules and they're called politicking or simply strategy. It's practically the same as talking someone else into submitting an MoNC so that you don't take the blame if it backfires, which is what quackquack attempted to do.
    What else do you call trying to buy yourself a buffer to cease being pathetically inactive using a mechanism which is obviously not intended for use in that regard?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Cheat? You must be ****ing kidding me. :laugh: Moves like this would all be within the rules and they're called politicking or simply strategy. It's practically the same as talking someone else into submitting an MoNC so that you don't take the blame if it backfires, which is what quackquack attempted to do.
    Sounds like a guilty plea to me.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    He told you that the plan was to withdraw the MoNC according to him.



    What else do you call trying to buy yourself a buffer to cease being pathetically inactive using a mechanism which is obviously not intended for use in that regard?
    Everyone, I told TDA last night that I want chips.

    Did I tell you TDA? No... but how is my claim that I told you something, any more or less true than Nigel's claim that he told us something.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Ridiculous? Seriously?

    According to the Constitution, a motion of no confidence can be called in the government at any time, unless less than two weeks have passed since the previous motion of no confidence in that position ended.

    Was this a motion of no confidence? Yes, it was.

    Did it end (by losing the support of the primary proposer and one of the seconders)? Yes, it did, according to you.

    According to the Guidance Document, a motion of no confidence can be called against the government at any point during a term of governance unless the government was formed less than two weeks prior to the motion, or less than two weeks have passed since the last motion of no confidence was called against the government.

    This means you can accept another MoNC in the government in about eleven days.
    A MoNC ends when voting closes and the result is declared. This hasn't, and won't, happen.

    This is a ruling I have made in advance and will not be changing it.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Please note, Mr Speaker, that the withdrawal was planned from the start, and the Tory party was in on it. This is a deliberate attempt at downright cheating and should have consequences.
    I am aware there were plans from the start. I made a ruling then and I am publicising it now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    He told you that the plan was to withdraw the MoNC according to him.



    What else do you call trying to buy yourself a buffer to cease being pathetically inactive using a mechanism which is obviously not intended for use in that regard?
    That was not what I said, the Tories were not told the plan, but I remember a Socialist member exploiting a loophole in the Guidance Document to save an MP seat belonging to a Socialist MP who could not be bothered to vote. The MHoC is not a debating club, the MHoC is a Model of the House of Commons where playing politics is the purpose of the game: if a member wants a debating club the member should go to UK Politics.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What else do you call trying to buy yourself a buffer to cease being pathetically inactive using a mechanism which is obviously not intended for use in that regard?
    Engaging of the brain, politicking, being smarter than the opposition (who the **** in Labour thought it a good idea to have UKIP proposing?)
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    A MoNC ends when voting closes and the result is declared. This hasn't, and won't, happen.
    On this basis then surely a new MoNC cannot be raised, as there is currently one ongoing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What else do you call trying to buy yourself a buffer to cease being pathetically inactive using a mechanism which is obviously not intended for use in that regard?
    Is filibustering cheating, Mr. smarty pants? :rolleyes: Political strategy is mostly about using standard means that are available to anyone to achieve unexpected results for one's own benefit. If it were true (and I think it would be a brilliant idea), it wouldn't be against the rules.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.