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

A125 - Statements, Reviews and Budgets Amendment Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I can only assume that the Rt Hon gentleman sees himself as in the perfect centre and has a very small bubble around him containing moderates.
    Regarding the Government, I think the centre is somewhere between myself and the 'general centrist' MPs like PetrosAC for example.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    United is one of the most left wing members of the house, and toronto is one of the most right wing members of the liberals. Neb's criticism is down to a difference of opinion.

    Having gone through the thread myself, 10 MPs expressed criticism of the budget 20% which is far from a majority, and most of those 10 MPs were in the Opposition. If LP wanted to send the budget to vote he could have asked Ray, who said that he would consider putting it to vote considering there was enough opposition. I don't think 20% of MPs having made a criticism of the budget is reason enough to put my own Budget to vote. toronto353
    Toronto failed to do the PC test, but he is most certainly unlikely to be the furthest right, for a start Josb sits beyond +5, and whilst THB has taken a wild swing to the left, he sat beyond 9, and at the start of the term there were 4 that took PC that sit right of the axis.

    And how many people supported? How many made no comment? How many stated no clear opposition or support? And you clearly are continuing in your trend of failure, since when was United part of the opposition?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Toronto failed to do the PC test, but he is most certainly unlikely to be the furthest right, for a start Josb sits beyond +5, and whilst THB has taken a wild swing to the left, he sat beyond 9, and at the start of the term there were 4 that took PC that sit right of the axis.

    And how many people supported? How many made no comment? How many stated no clear opposition or support? And you clearly are continuing in your trend of failure, since when was United part of the opposition?
    When did I say that united was a part of the opposition?

    19 Government MPs fully support the budget. which outnumbers the people who expressed opposition by 9.

    As for MPs who made no comment, they are literally irrelevant. The MPs who made a criticism of the budget without coherently stating whether or not they support it are included in the 10.

    In terms of voting records, we see Josb and Toronto semi-constantly voting against the government or not in line with the government, hence they are on the fringes.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Regarding the Government, I think the centre is somewhere between myself and the 'general centrist' MPs like PetrosAC for example.
    I can assure you that you are not near the centre in my opinion, but firmly left wing.

    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    United is one of the most left wing members of the house, and toronto is one of the most right wing members of the liberals. Neb's criticism is down to a difference of opinion.

    Having gone through the thread myself, 10 MPs expressed criticism of the budget 20% which is far from a majority, and most of those 10 MPs were in the Opposition. If LP wanted to send the budget to vote he could have asked Ray, who said that he would consider putting it to vote considering there was enough opposition. I don't think 20% of MPs having made a criticism of the budget is reason enough to put my own Budget to vote. toronto353
    Ah you see you're now changing your mind - I've gone from being 'far right' to being one of the most right wing liberals.

    I think that 20% of MPs criticising a budget is a fair amount to trigger a vote - the question that you've still not answered is why all of the changes in the amendment are needed or why a budget shouldn't be voted on.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I can assure you that you are not near the centre in my opinion, but firmly left wing.

    Ah you see you're now changing your mind - I've gone from being 'far right' to being one of the most right wing liberals.

    I think that 20% of MPs criticising a budget is a fair amount to trigger a vote - the question that you've still not answered is why all of the changes in the amendment are needed or why a budget shouldn't be voted on.
    I used the term far right not in the sense that you're a nazi, but in the sense that you're one of the most right wing liberals and are in the fringes of the government.

    This amendment allows Budgets to be voted on. I don't think that there should be a vote on every review or report because it's a waste of time to vote on a bunch of non binding stuff unless there's enough of a precedence for it.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    I used the term far right not in the sense that you're a nazi, but in the sense that you're one of the most right wing liberals and are in the fringes of the government.

    This amendment allows Budgets to be voted on. I don't think that there should be a vote on every review or report because it's a waste of time to vote on a bunch of non binding stuff unless there's enough of a precedence for it.
    But, I think that you also know that far right has that connotation and I would appreciate it if you don't use such a phrase in conjunction with myself in the future.

    Then we're in agreement that allowing a budget to be voted on is a good thing then? In terms of this amendment, why would remove reviews, keeping SOIs and having a four day vote on each be enough? Why are all the readings etc. necessary? They seem wholly unnecessary.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    But, I think that you also know that far right has that connotation and I would appreciate it if you don't use such a phrase in conjunction with myself in the future.

    Then we're in agreement that allowing a budget to be voted on is a good thing then? In terms of this amendment, why would remove reviews, keeping SOIs and having a four day vote on each be enough? Why are all the readings etc. necessary? They seem wholly unnecessary.
    Readings aren't compulsory, they allow the author to make alterations if necessary.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Having read through the whole debate and taken a few pages of notes I can say there was a fair bit of fellatio (omitted from my further compressed notes) with several recipients, but what I can see is:
    • Neb criticising Trident decisions and stating opposition
    • Petros supporting
    • United opposing based on lack of changes based on criticism internally
    • Toronto opposing, with criticism of trident changes, welfare changes, inheritance tax changes and the sugar tax
    • Aspie supporting
    • Wellzi to me implying opposition but nothing conclusive
    • Kay supporting
    • LTG supporting if you fixed your grammar
    • Teng opposing, criticising the 50p rates, the overseas study funding, the PFI changes, trident changes, and the culture section
    • TDA generally supports, bar child benefits and questions the PFIs
    • Hero is not convinced by the sugar tax, opposes the child benefit changes and questions several things
    • I opposed with criticism of the 50p rate, the LVT/GRT with it being highly punitive and regressive, the sugar tax, pointed out how arbitrary many figures are and how vague so much is, the PFIs, the defence atrocity, and your shoddy accounting as well as trhe extent of the council house building
    • THB supports bar the trident decision, isn't it funny how you are doing things to defence that the SoS defence isn't signing off on?
    • Nigel opposes, criticises how vague and empty it all is, the lack of creative solutions, the inheritance tax and 50p rate, the GRT/LVT, sugar tax, overseas student funding, PFIs, council house numbers and accounting of, the increase to JSA and the defence section
    • Hazzer opposing
    • Tommy opposing
    • Adam appearing to oppose with arbitrary numbers being used
    • BArnetlad appearing to support questioning PFIs and wanting more rail investment
    • Balanced agreeing on energy proposals but saying little else
    • TheFinancier opposing, criticising the 50p rate, LVT/GRT, Inheritance tax, sugar tax, overseas student funding, PFIs, Rail Takeovers, the TFL proposals, the monarchy proposals the defence proposals and the football bit
    • Rakas made comments on a very small portion
    So we have criticisms in there of your trident proposals, the 50p rate of income tax even from the SoS Defence, unknown issues from United, the welfare changes, inheritance tax changes and the sugar tax, the overseas funding proposals, PFIs and most of the culture proposals, the LVT/GRT, how arbitrary and unrealistic many of the figures are, the amount being given to Afghanistan, the number of council houses being built, the rate at which they are to be built (10,000 pa according to the budget), the accounting relating to council houses, the lack of creative solutions, the increasing of JSA, the lack of rail investment, the TFL proposals and the Rail Takeovers, the monarchy proposals. Actually, most of the budget was criticised, the bold bits rather frequently.

    In terms of rebuttals we had dodgy figures presented to defend the dodgy figures for the 50p tax rate, the rebuttals for which were ignored. You made repudiations for the inheritance tax changes and sugar tax, you diverted some criticism of the Council houses to the Home Sec and stubbornly insisted you accounted for them correctly for the way you want them done, you diverted all education matters to the ministers, repudiated the PFIs and are still yet to tell us anything beyond "I'm going to scrap them penalty free", you seemed to suggest that all the defence figures first time round just happened to be out by a factor of 10. You waved your hands around a bit with regard to the ATA, didn't defend your arbitrary figures on flood defences.

    I make clearly stated or heavily implied support to be Yourself, Petros, Aspie, Kay, LTG, Fez, THB, Barnetlad- 16%
    Probable support TDA-2%
    Probable opposition- Wellzi, Adam- 4%
    Clearly opposed to be Neb, United, Toronto, Teng, Myself, Nigel, Hazzer, TheFinancier, Tommy- 18%
    Which leaves 60% having not really made clear intentions either way.

    I have a feeling that in my compression things have been missed out, but to suggest that there is a clear support is laughable based on the debate given that it seems at best half an half, with criticism of most things a few things with very widespread criticism. So why aren't you putting your money where your mouth is and adding your name to the list of people that would support the budget being sent to division?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    James Milibanter
    Forgot to tag you until after having pressed send, see above.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    James Milibanter
    Forgot to tag you until after having pressed send, see above.
    In your figures you fail to take into account those who had given their support in the government sub. Which means that:

    I make clearly stated or heavily implied support to be Yourself, Petros, Aspie, Kay, LTG, Fez, THB, Barnetlad, LovePreetDhillon, McRite, Junaidk7, Imperion, Ericateyou, Aph- 28%

    Probable support TDA-2%

    Probable opposition- Wellzi, Adam- 4%

    Clearly opposed to be Neb, United, Toronto, Teng, Myself, Nigel, Hazzer, TheFinancier, Tommy- 18%

    Which leaves 48% having not really made clear intentions either way.


    Now then, if we don't count the people who had not sided we see that:

    Those in favour: 57.7%

    Those not in favour: 42.3%

    Which is a clear majority in favour of the budget.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    In your figures you fail to take into account those who had given their support in the government sub. Which means that:

    I make clearly stated or heavily implied support to be Yourself, Petros, Aspie, Kay, LTG, Fez, THB, Barnetlad, LovePreetDhillon, McRite, Junaidk7, Imperion, Ericateyou, Aph- 28%

    Probable support TDA-2%

    Probable opposition- Wellzi, Adam- 4%

    Clearly opposed to be Neb, United, Toronto, Teng, Myself, Nigel, Hazzer, TheFinancier, Tommy- 18%

    Which leaves 48% having not really made clear intentions either way.


    Now then, if we don't count the people who had not sided we see that:

    Those in favour: 57.7%

    Those not in favour: 42.3%

    Which is a clear majority in favour of the budget.
    You want to count people as they voted in the government sub? Does that mean that I can make assumptions about others too who are not in the government? What we're sat on is confidence is 30% for, 22% against, with a further 48%, i.e. a plurality, which could go either way. Do you want me to start adding people on to the list that I know will vote against it, because we can start pulling figures up that way, I'm pretty confident that Mobbsy and LP will vote against, for instance, based on conversations with them which would draw things to 54/46, although I'm sure in retaliation you would start doing the same with your colleagues.. We have 58/42 if we assume that nobody changed their opinion and the only people who vote are those 26 that we have listed. I don't know about you, but I would be disappointed with a 52% turn out.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    In your figures you fail to take into account those who had given their support in the government sub. Which means that:

    I make clearly stated or heavily implied support to be Yourself, Petros, Aspie, Kay, LTG, Fez, THB, Barnetlad, LovePreetDhillon, McRite, Junaidk7, Imperion, Ericateyou, Aph- 28%

    Probable support TDA-2%

    Probable opposition- Wellzi, Adam- 4%

    Clearly opposed to be Neb, United, Toronto, Teng, Myself, Nigel, Hazzer, TheFinancier, Tommy- 18%

    Which leaves 48% having not really made clear intentions either way.


    Now then, if we don't count the people who had not sided we see that:

    Those in favour: 57.7%

    Those not in favour: 42.3%

    Which is a clear majority in favour of the budget.
    That's a rather shameless manipulation of figures don't you think? If we focus solely on those who declared support or opposition, we end up with 42% opposing, 58% supporting - do you not think that it warrants a vote at that point then? I also think it's hugely unfair to pull out support in the Government forum which Jammy Duel can't corroborate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    That's a rather shameless manipulation of figures don't you think? If we focus solely on those who declared support or opposition, we end up with 42% opposing, 58% supporting - do you not think that it warrants a vote at that point then? I also think it's hugely unfair to pull out support in the Government forum which Jammy Duel can't corroborate.
    Indeed, and as I pointed out I can start playing the same game too by drawing in members that I know or can be highly certain oppose the "budget" that made no comment or were in the hinterland where we cannot determine from what they said publicly. Although I do feel we may be getting near the point where James starts pretending that the arguments against his point don't exist or is otherwise unwilling or unable to defend his position further, it took a week even to get a half arsed rebuttal on the budget and defence of the ATA amendment seems to be over when it's barely begun.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You want to count people as they voted in the government sub? Does that mean that I can make assumptions about others too who are not in the government? What we're sat on is confidence is 30% for, 22% against, with a further 48%, i.e. a plurality, which could go either way. Do you want me to start adding people on to the list that I know will vote against it, because we can start pulling figures up that way, I'm pretty confident that Mobbsy and LP will vote against, for instance, based on conversations with them which would draw things to 54/46, although I'm sure in retaliation you would start doing the same with your colleagues.. We have 58/42 if we assume that nobody changed their opinion and the only people who vote are those 26 that we have listed. I don't know about you, but I would be disappointed with a 52% turn out.
    All that I'm saying is that those who could go either way shouldn't really be counted, in the GE we didn't say the Tories got 25% of the vote, because those who didn't vote aren't part of the figures nor should they be.

    The confidence in the government is irrelevant, though if you'd like to start a motion then go ahead, you're within your rights to do so.

    All that I'm saying that if we're doing statistics, no matter which quantifiable evidence there is, there is more support for the budget than opposition, which is why a vote would be stupid. Not only that, but to have a vote on a non-binding document, just because some members don't agree with some parts of it, is an amazing waste of time. I'd consider it, if the vote made it binding, but seeing as it does not, I'd rather this house were run as efficiently as possible.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    That's a rather shameless manipulation of figures don't you think? If we focus solely on those who declared support or opposition, we end up with 42% opposing, 58% supporting - do you not think that it warrants a vote at that point then? I also think it's hugely unfair to pull out support in the Government forum which Jammy Duel can't corroborate.
    No. It's not unfair, I can't blame Jammy for not knowing the Government support, that's understandable, but it's not unfair to count those who have stated their support (or otherwise).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    All that I'm saying is that those who could go either way shouldn't really be counted, in the GE we didn't say the Tories got 25% of the vote, because those who didn't vote aren't part of the figures nor should they be.

    The confidence in the government is irrelevant, though if you'd like to start a motion then go ahead, you're within your rights to do so.

    All that I'm saying that if we're doing statistics, no matter which quantifiable evidence there is, there is more support for the budget than opposition, which is why a vote would be stupid. Not only that, but to have a vote on a non-binding document, just because some members don't agree with some parts of it, is an amazing waste of time. I'd consider it, if the vote made it binding, but seeing as it does not, I'd rather this house were run as efficiently as possible.



    No. It's not unfair, I can't blame Jammy for not knowing the Government support, that's understandable, but it's not unfair to count those who have stated their support (or otherwise).
    Again, you clutch at straws, I can with 100% certainty say I know of two more who would oppose, all I need to to think of two more where the same holds and I can bring it to a flat 50-50, but I guess then you would reject my extra people yet include yours.. Your GE analogy is also somewhat off, the more correct analogy would be to consider the polling given that we're talking about guessing results without actually voting. It's also worth asking, in how many constituencies would "no vote cast" win the seat.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Also, toronto353, given that James seems to want to pull in those who aired support in the government sub forum, by any chance did he fail to add to the list of opponents those who voiced opposition in there but not in the public thread so as to inflate his numbers further?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Again, you clutch at straws, I can with 100% certainty say I know of two more who would oppose, all I need to to think of two more where the same holds and I can bring it to a flat 50-50, but I guess then you would reject my extra people yet include yours.. Your GE analogy is also somewhat off, the more correct analogy would be to consider the polling given that we're talking about guessing results without actually voting. It's also worth asking, in how many constituencies would "no vote cast" win the seat.
    "no vote cast" isn't a vote though, so it can't win. So talking about them is pointless unless talking about turnout as well.

    It's not clutching at straws, 14 MPs have stated their support for the budget, I could then speculate and guess how more members would vote. For example I know a few Government members will vote against but I know the majority will vote for. I can speculate and speculate, but in terms of the raw figures at the moment there is more support than opposition, if you want to add to the data then that's up to you.

    I'm not exactly being unreasonable here, I have stated that there is inadequate precedent for a vote on the budget, a non-binding document (I must add, AGAIN). You have yet to provide an adequate argument that there is a precedent for it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Also, toronto353, given that James seems to want to pull in those who aired support in the government sub forum, by any chance did he fail to add to the list of opponents those who voiced opposition in there but not in the public thread so as to inflate his numbers further?
    Those who voiced opposition made so clear in the thread and are already mentioned.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    "no vote cast" isn't a vote though, so it can't win. So talking about them is pointless unless talking about turnout as well.

    It's not clutching at straws, 14 MPs have stated their support for the budget, I could then speculate and guess how more members would vote. For example I know a few Government members will vote against but I know the majority will vote for. I can speculate and speculate, but in terms of the raw figures at the moment there is more support than opposition, if you want to add to the data then that's up to you.

    I'm not exactly being unreasonable here, I have stated that there is inadequate precedent for a vote on the budget, a non-binding document (I must add, AGAIN). You have yet to provide an adequate argument that there is a precedent for it.
    You have now gone and jumped from talking about principle and talking about precedent. Earlier you were saying that with significant opposition there should be a vote, now you are arguing there should not be because there is no precedent, you're simply moving the goal posts as you arguments collapse. It's also interesting to see how you earlier claimed 19 support in the government alone, and that figure is now down to 14 including those beyond the government. And as already stated, in terms of raw figures there is not support, you added on your 5 extra people to bring a total of 15 swinging towards and only 11, but I can definitely add 2 more to that 11, and can likely add 3 more, which then swings things by your methodology to it being mostly against, no doubt you would then go out and search for 2 more to bring it back etc, but you started on the position that significant support should have a vote, and clearly then you should also be backing there being a vote, but since the figures stopped working as you wanted them to you now shift the goal posts to precedent being against your own notion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You have now gone and jumped from talking about principle and talking about precedent. Earlier you were saying that with significant opposition there should be a vote, now you are arguing there should not be because there is no precedent, you're simply moving the goal posts as you arguments collapse. It's also interesting to see how you earlier claimed 19 support in the government alone, and that figure is now down to 14 including those beyond the government. And as already stated, in terms of raw figures there is not support, you added on your 5 extra people to bring a total of 15 swinging towards and only 11, but I can definitely add 2 more to that 11, and can likely add 3 more, which then swings things by your methodology to it being mostly against, no doubt you would then go out and search for 2 more to bring it back etc, but you started on the position that significant support should have a vote, and clearly then you should also be backing there being a vote, but since the figures stopped working as you wanted them to you now shift the goal posts to precedent being against your own notion.
    99% of what you say is just ad hominem, in reality there's very little substance to it. In fact I'm going to start summarising everything you say in your paragraphs of insults into a couple sentences.

    "Earlier you were saying that with significant opposition there should be a vote, now you are arguing there should not be because there is no precedent"

    It turns out that in all of that you could have just written one sentence.

    First of all, there is neither the precedent to call a vote on the budget nor is there any principle in doing so. There has not been the demonstration of significant opposition to the budget.

    Regarding the 19 then 14, the 19 MPs was speculation, the 14 MPs were set in stone. Hence why when it came to the statistics, I only counted those that had claimed support and voted in favour.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 4, 2016
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • 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.