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

Member of the Month (January 2016) - VOTING Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Who should be awarded Member of the Month?
    Aph
    7
    12.96%
    James Milibanter
    9
    16.67%
    RayApparently
    21
    38.89%
    The Definite Article
    6
    11.11%
    R.O.N.
    11
    20.37%

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i can see both sides of the argument but it may be that we've simply had a slow month and Ray is right to say that those complaining had ample time.

    I do think the list this is a little uninspiring but then i can't really see anybody that had stood out (bar myself i'd like to think but that could just be the ego talking) more so i put it down to a slow month.

    I voted for Definite Article on the basis that despite the constraints the Socialists have (poor command structure, few active members, few MP seats) i think that he's performed admirably and made them relevant for the first time in several terms. That's not so much a month thing but a term thing yet i feel he and the other Socialists do deserve such an award.

    So go Definite Article.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    (bar myself i'd like to think but that could just be the ego talking)
    :yes:
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If members feel others who were not nominated deserve the award more then they had ample time to nominate them - but those who are simply suggesting that they'd rather see no one win than one of these three, frankly, demean themselves and should take some time for self-reflection - if for no other reason than to see that the sun does not in fact shine out of their arses.
    I hugely disagree with this. The reason many probably did not nominate anyone, is because they thought no one deserved to have the award this month... there's nothing wrong with that, and that doesn't mean that we all see the sun shining out of our arses.

    I personally don't think anyone made an outstanding contribution to the House in January, and that includes me... Think what you want, but I don't think that demeans me, or anyone else who voted for RON, and I won't take time for self-reflection. Instead I will take the time to just consider the options once again, and be even more sure that I don't want to vote for any one on the list.

    Are you annoyed that we'd rather see RON win than you perhaps?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Your personal opinion may be that no one is deserving of the award, in which case vote RON, just remember that this is your personal opinion.
    I do not object to people believing some candidates are deserving, nor do I object to people telling me to vote RON, but I do object to having the Speaker accuse me of believing the sun shines out of my behind, I am demeaning myself, and I need to look in the mirror.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Would everyone be happy with the inclusion of a "Nobody this months has warranted this award" option or something similar? We need to be willing to support each other's achievements when they happen but there is clearly support for an official opt-out. I have to say I don't support this option because I don't trust the membership these days to not simply vote for that if none of their friends or party members are nominated.

    Another option is to have the award every month and make it so that each party nominates one person and provides a reason why, so that we have broad representation. Rather than attacking each other let's decide on a way forward. I am the first to disparage much of what happens here. I thought that the fact that nobody engaged with my concerns RE the budget was awful, but I don't hold James accountable for that. He put in the work and deserves to be credited for it whether we agree or not. Where was his party and his government when he needed their support? Blaming him for the lack of debate misses the point.

    It is surely better for everyone if we take this opportunity to discuss what might be done in the future. I look forward to hearing what people have to say regarding this award and rest assured I always reply
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    [/list]If members feel others who were not nominated deserve the award more then they had ample time to nominate them - but those who are simply suggesting that they'd rather see no one win than one of these three, frankly, demean themselves and should take some time for self-reflection - if for no other reason than to see that the sun does not in fact shine out of their arses.
    This seems a little much, Ray. I'm always willing to be charitable despite myself and vote for the best option in these kinds of things but I think it is entirely reasonable for people to think that nobody deserves it. What isn't reasonable is to denigrate the nominees after the fact simply because none of them take your fancy, or to be angry at the process when you were given ample chance to offer nominations - I'm entirely with you there. I'm saddened to see the response this has had in the house and understand your position, but I think you may have let yourself down slightly with this post....
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airmed)
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Sarcasm, I hope.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This is an absolute joke of a poll (and not just because nobody nominated me ), we have ourselves four candidates and I could only possibly bring myself to vote for one of them, although RoN was far more appealing. Aph I guess is only here because it seems it is now just one of those jokes, practically part of the institution, he must be nominated for pretty much every award. For the next two I shall use slightly more parliamentary language than in the past and say that Ray and James have both been nominated as suck ups. Ray has been, if we being honest with ourselves, a fairly mediocre speaker; one would not expect a new speaker to be as good in their role as their predecessor, but after a month you would expect things to largely be rectified, and even from the off rather trivial mistakes not to be made. We then get James, who received a nomination for the budget, if you can call it that, which was poorly written and he largely refused to defend, does this mean that if this term I write a full post of drivel and then fail to defend myself from the criticism of it I can be nominated for February? The final candidate I would say is the most deserving of it, actually putting forwards well reasoned arguments, however at the same time tactical voting has to kick in.
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Completely agree! The reason I've not yet voted is because the calibre of the candidates makes such a decision rather difficult.
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The End of Term Awards are considerably more substantial than the MotM awards and indeed award 'valuable contributions' as well. Saying that someone can be nominated in the former to compensate for their being rejected in the latter is very strange indeed. I also question your expertise on what are and are not the 'grounds to be nominated'.

    You should read what I said more carefully.
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Your personal opinion may be that no one is deserving of the award, in which case vote RON, just remember that this is your personal opinion.
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I do not object to people believing some candidates are deserving, nor do I object to people telling me to vote RON, but I do object to having the Speaker accuse me of believing the sun shines out of my behind, I am demeaning myself, and I need to look in the mirror.

    I shouldn't be doing the Speaker's job years after leaving but what are your thoughts to my comments above? I want to get this ironed out ASAP as we are better than this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Would everyone be happy with the inclusion of a "Nobody this months has warranted this award" option or something similar? We need to be willing to support each other's achievements when they happen but there is clearly support for an official opt-out. I have to say I don't support this option because I don't trust the membership these days to not simply vote for that if none of their friends or party members are nominated.

    Another option is to have the award every month and make it so that each party nominates one person and provides a reason why, so that we have broad representation. Rather than attacking each other let's decide on a way forward. I am the first to disparage much of what happens here. I thought that the fact that nobody engaged with my concerns RE the budget was awful, but I don't hold James accountable for that. He put in the work and deserves to be credited for it whether we agree or not. Where was his party and his government when he needed their support? Blaming him for the lack of debate misses the point.

    It is surely better for everyone if we take this opportunity to discuss what might be done in the future. I look forward to hearing what people have to say regarding this award and rest assured I always reply
    Two things to say about the second paragraph is that if each party were nominating somebody, labour would probably nominate one of their own, their *****es in the liberals would probably nominate somebody from labour, socialists and greens I'm not sure but I would expect two people from labour or liberals, Tories and UKIP nominate two people from those two parties, then everybody goes tribal, the left throw everything behind one of their candidates, most of the right behind one of theirs and a few float about, at which point you may as well have a nominee from the left, one from the right, skip voting and give it to the one on the left.

    As for the second half, you do not hold an individual responsible for not defending their own stuff?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ByronicHero I agree with the assessment Jammy duel gave, but I would support a poll asking MPs if MPs believe there have been stand out people in the month to warrant a round of Member of the Month.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Two things to say about the second paragraph is that if each party were nominating somebody, labour would probably nominate one of their own, their *****es in the liberals would probably nominate somebody from labour, socialists and greens I'm not sure but I would expect two people from labour or liberals, Tories and UKIP nominate two people from those two parties, then everybody goes tribal, the left throw everything behind one of their candidates, most of the right behind one of theirs and a few float about, at which point you may as well have a nominee from the left, one from the right, skip voting and give it to the one on the left.

    As for the second half, you do not hold an individual responsible for not defending their own stuff?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Both parts of your response were addressing the second half. That's fine, I just declare it for interest.

    I don't disagree with your conclusion. I would vote for a Tory who had made the effort to instigate debate and defend their position 100 times out of 100 even if I felt I had destroyed them in said debate but I know that other people do not have that same intellectual security that I do. Given your criticism, how would you have the award operate?

    Yes I feel an individual bears some obligation, but when the offering is a government offering the onus is on the entire government to intervene. In my day, were I PM,DPM, party leader or otherwise I'd have registered my opinion in the subforum but then, if something went beyond that, gone to war on that basis (barring considerable moral barriers [for me these would generally pertain to education or welfare]).
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    ByronicHero I agree with the assessment Jammy duel gave, but I would support a poll asking MPs if MPs believe there have been stand out people in the month to warrant a round of Member of the Month.
    Hi Nigel,

    I just wrote a long reply to this but my computer decided to install updates. Please take my advice and do not update to windows 10 for at least another year until they have stopped trolling people by updating at random ****ing times. Hold this against me if you like, I can do nothing about it.

    How would your poll work? Would the yes/no then lead to a more detailed vote if in the affirmative?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Both parts of your response were addressing the second half. That's fine, I just declare it for interest.

    I don't disagree with your conclusion. I would vote for a Tory who had made the effort to instigate debate and defend their position 100 times out of 100 even if I felt I had destroyed them in said debate but I know that other people do not have that same intellectual security that I do. Given your criticism, how would you have the award operate?

    Yes I feel an individual bears some obligation, but when the offering is a government offering the onus is on the entire government to intervene. In my day, were I PM,DPM, party leader or otherwise I'd have registered my opinion in the subforum but then, if something went beyond that, gone to war on that basis (barring considerable moral barriers [for me these would generally pertain to education or welfare]).
    Personally I would not see it operated at all, I don't particularly see the point of them. To me it is either a vote for the same of a vote to make the place look less dead, or it's an award for the sake of an award because these days there is the fixation with everybody getting something.

    I'm not going to disagree with the second half, and it is largely a failure not only of the government, but the whole house. However, I would not say that it entirely relieves Mr Milibanter given that at least one person who nominated him did it not only because he was able to sit down for a few hours over a month to bash out a couple of thousand words, but also for putting up with my debate. What that largely entails is myself, sometimes Nigel or TDA and more rarely others, establishing a flaw in the argument, or even a simple flaw in the methodology, to which we get the never ending response effectively of the form "no I'm right", visible in the ATA amendment, the budget, AtG at the time of the budget, and several other times. Yes, it is the fault of the schools government and whole house, but what does not help a great deal is when there is a withering assault from one half of the active membership and ignorance from the other half.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Hi Nigel,

    I just wrote a long reply to this but my computer decided to install updates. Please take my advice and do not update to windows 10 for at least another year until they have stopped trolling people by updating at random ****ing times. Hold this against me if you like, I can do nothing about it.

    How would your poll work? Would the yes/no then lead to a more detailed vote if in the affirmative?
    My laptop came with Windows 10 installed, I can understand the frustration it causes by restarting at time a restart is unwanted. If the poll returns more ayes the process for Member of the Month that was used this time will be followed, if more noes are returned, Member of the Month will not happen in that month.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    This seems a little much, Ray. I'm always willing to be charitable despite myself and vote for the best option in these kinds of things but I think it is entirely reasonable for people to think that nobody deserves it. What isn't reasonable is to denigrate the nominees after the fact simply because none of them take your fancy, or to be angry at the process when you were given ample chance to offer nominations - I'm entirely with you there. I'm saddened to see the response this has had in the house and understand your position, but I think you may have let yourself down slightly with this post....
    I agree with what has been said. Minus that us Liberals are Labour's *****es.

    This Member of the Month thingy anyway doesn't really interest me. We have term awards and that's all we need I think.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I will respond to everyone (those who know me know I could never make the decision to not to) but I have a IRL issue to deal with first.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Personally I would not see it operated at all, I don't particularly see the point of them. To me it is either a vote for the same of a vote to make the place look less dead, or it's an award for the sake of an award because these days there is the fixation with everybody getting something.
    Fair enough. I disagree, but understand this viewpoint entirely.

    I'm not going to disagree with the second half, and it is largely a failure not only of the government, but the whole house. However, I would not say that it entirely relieves Mr Milibanter given that at least one person who nominated him did it not only because he was able to sit down for a few hours over a month to bash out a couple of thousand words, but also for putting up with my debate. What that largely entails is myself, sometimes Nigel or TDA and more rarely others, establishing a flaw in the argument, or even a simple flaw in the methodology, to which we get the never ending response effectively of the form "no I'm right", visible in the ATA amendment, the budget, AtG at the time of the budget, and several other times. Yes, it is the fault of the schools government and whole house, but what does not help a great deal is when there is a withering assault from one half of the active membership and ignorance from the other half.
    I have to admit that I do not pay enough attention to the level of debate to defend or support your words. What I can say is that I often offer my criticism and am yet to be offered much in return. Over the years, as an aggregate, I have been forced to conclude that most of you are too feeble to respond. That is not

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    My laptop came with Windows 10 installed, I can understand the frustration it causes by restarting at time a restart is unwanted. If the poll returns more ayes the process for Member of the Month that was used this time will be followed, if more noes are returned, Member of the Month will not happen in that month.
    (Original post by Airmed)
    I agree with what has been said. Minus that us Liberals are Labour's *****es.

    This Member of the Month thingy anyway doesn't really interest me. We have term awards and that's all we need I think.
    Maybe we need some sort of vote in general.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I hugely disagree with this. The reason many probably did not nominate anyone, is because they thought no one deserved to have the award this month... there's nothing wrong with that, and that doesn't mean that we all see the sun shining out of our arses.

    I personally don't think anyone made an outstanding contribution to the House in January, and that includes me... Think what you want, but I don't think that demeans me, or anyone else who voted for RON, and I won't take time for self-reflection. Instead I will take the time to just consider the options once again, and be even more sure that I don't want to vote for any one on the list.

    Are you annoyed that we'd rather see RON win than you perhaps?
    RON means that you want nominations to be re-opened - i.e. that someone else is more deserving. To not want anyone to win would mean not voting at all. I was not criticising you or other people for voting RON. I was criticising those people who can't seem to let an opportunity to put others down go. In my original announcement I said the award was for someone we "value" - someone who "makes the MHoC a better place to be" - I even light heartedly suggested "cracking banter" as grounds for a nomination. And yet, despite this clearly being a lighthearted event, some people wish to use it as a stick to beat people with and disregard what I feel are very real contributions. It is arrogance to put down people's hard work in that fashion. And to not be able to bear to see someone else rewarded is spiteful. In a crowd of people on their backs, to kneel is to be 'outstanding'. If we have a dull month then perhaps the Member of the Month will be a dull one. And there's nothing wrong with that.

    As should be obvious by now, I'm a Speaker who tries not to take themselves to seriously - I hope that in this way the House will slowly stop taking itself too seriously - not everything has to be the start of WW3. Sometimes it's ok to reward people you disagree with. If we don't learn to be better than we currently are people will stop writing budgets and bills, they will stop contributing to debates and we won't be able to complain about it.

    As for your final point, I ask that you don't make this about me. I am speaking in defence of the other nominees (as should be obvious from my post) and desperately hope I don't win, nor do I expect to.

    I was too passionate in my initial reaction - and for that I apologise, unreservedly to those who felt targeted, but would never target others. However I feel the vast majority saw that my comments were, at least in part, tongue-in-cheek and that my underlying message was an important one.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    This seems a little much, Ray. I'm always willing to be charitable despite myself and vote for the best option in these kinds of things but I think it is entirely reasonable for people to think that nobody deserves it. What isn't reasonable is to denigrate the nominees after the fact simply because none of them take your fancy, or to be angry at the process when you were given ample chance to offer nominations - I'm entirely with you there. I'm saddened to see the response this has had in the house and understand your position, but I think you may have let yourself down slightly with this post....
    I did perhaps express myself indelicately - I can never resist a good arse metaphor.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Personally i can see both sides of the argument but it may be that we've simply had a slow month and Ray is right to say that those complaining had ample time.

    I do think the list this is a little uninspiring but then i can't really see anybody that had stood out (bar myself i'd like to think but that could just be the ego talking) more so i put it down to a slow month.

    I voted for Definite Article on the basis that despite the constraints the Socialists have (poor command structure, few active members, few MP seats) i think that he's performed admirably and made them relevant for the first time in several terms. That's not so much a month thing but a term thing yet i feel he and the other Socialists do deserve such an award.

    So go Definite Article.
    To be honest so did I (sorry James, sorry Aph) - more because I felt he was deserving but would very likely be overlooked by others than anything else.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I will respond to everyone (those who know me know I could never make the decision to not to) but I have a IRL issue to deal with first.
    My stance is that the most efficient course of action here is to replace RON with the Nobody this month option. It involves no extra bureaucracy while somewhat dealing with the problems surrounding any alternatives.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:


    Cheers to everyone who voted for me, I guess.

    So.... I win. Yeah.

    Weeeeeeel... That was fun.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • 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.