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

Motion of No Confidence in HM Government Watch

Announcements
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Does that mean they are worse, or are you being modest?
    I don't think they are worse.

    What you have is an opposition who appear to have massively raised their standards without an apparent ability to rise to that standard themselves either. UKIP's recent record in government is shocking, and the Tories seem either too inflexible or too unpopular to get themselves over the line.

    What I really think is the real shame is how certain members have lost sight of the amateur nature of the MHoC, and the fact that really we are all supposed to be here for a bit of fun. Some members (not exclusively on the opposition benches to be fair) seem to be taking things too far. Chillax folks.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I don't think they are worse.

    What you have is an opposition who appear to have massively raised their standards without an apparent ability to rise to that standard themselves either. UKIP's recent record in government is shocking, and the Tories seem either too inflexible or too unpopular to get themselves over the line.

    What I really think is the real shame is how certain members have lost sight of the amateur nature of the MHoC, and the fact that really we are all supposed to be here for a bit of fun. Some members (not exclusively on the opposition benches to be fair) seem to be taking things too far. Chillax folks.
    It is the attitude of taking things not that seriously which has led to declining standards in debate, bills, and engagement. If members cannot afford to take this game seriously those members should resign their seats to find something different to do; those members are ruining the very point of having a Model House of Commons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP and Tories are just sad that the public didn't vote for them. Even if they do win this motion, although it is unlikely, the public will kick them out in two months time any ways.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I don't think they are worse.

    What you have is an opposition who appear to have massively raised their standards without an apparent ability to rise to that standard themselves either. UKIP's recent record in government is shocking, and the Tories seem either too inflexible or too unpopular to get themselves over the line.

    What I really think is the real shame is how certain members have lost sight of the amateur nature of the MHoC, and the fact that really we are all supposed to be here for a bit of fun. Some members (not exclusively on the opposition benches to be fair) seem to be taking things too far. Chillax folks.
    hmmm, in terms of quality, there doesn't seem much difference between the opposition and government, though where there are mistakes, they do seem to be on your side of the house.
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If Byronichero, Rakas, Life_peer, Toronto, and Birchington all make comments about the declining standards, when all of them have been here for over half a decade, I think it is acceptable to believe their words.
    When did they say this?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I read the 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015. If there's more then I apologise but as for the ones I read, it's not too bad.



    I'm not saying I agree with the proposals or that it was perfect, but compared to the others I've read, it's not too different in terms of quality (except the 2015, but there was enough badmouthing of it in the thread, I also understand that you had some involvement in it). So wait, why did an amendment to correct the errors fail? Sorry, it's a little confusing.
    I can't say I've looked in depth at the earlier ones, but this budget was full of massive errors that the chancellor completely ignored when challenged, the few that he did "defend" had his defence ultimately being "I'm going to ignore what you put and merely asset my correctness" something that they also did with several bills and their earlier statements.

    The stuff I remember distinctly is the ATA, which I believe was passed in the last parliament but labour still included in their manifesto pledges, which severely understands the costs and increased council tax by between 7 and 20 times, to which the response was basically "no we were right, you're wrong". One of the early statements seemed to suggest that the TSR government knows better than RL experts by declaring that certain forms of power generation are something like 0.01% of what the DECC declare; then going on in another to suggest that decreasing energy bills for the incompetent would not increase power bills for everybody else, despite those revenue cuts pushing the power companies to at best a break even position.

    We got a defence review that proposed doubling the GCHQ and SIS budgets because they didn't bother looking at the initial budge, they proposed funding the entire Afghan government because they don't seem to understand how departments or the treasury operates (recently going on to believe they can simply transfer funds from one department to another mid term) and funding all of this by cutting the trident budget by nearly 6x its operating cost. Needless to say that it was withdrawn without comment.

    We saw a statement from the FCO declaring withdrawal from the commonwealth to magically improve the human rights records of all the other members.

    When the ATA got its failed government amendment the government had no idea what they were even talking about, unable to even agree amongst themselves what they meant, and defending all criticism by ignoring what was said and just saying "supply and demand", even though their supply and demand model would have RL costs much much lower than they actually are.

    At this moment I cannot remember anything else off the top of my head but that is but a taster.

    As said earlier, the MoNC submitted is the nice version with the sections of the above omitted.

    Also there was no amendment to correct the errors, depending on what you were talking about. If the budget we cannot, if the ATA because the government pleaded for a chance to fix it and then it failed because it was frankly ****.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LovepreetDhillon)
    UKIP and Tories are just sad that the public didn't vote for them. Even if they do win this motion, although it is unlikely, the public will kick them out in two months time any ways.
    What do you want to bet on that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What do you want to bet on that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As a betting man, I'd say that another LabLib coalition would be even money or less, while a ConKip would be 3/1 or more.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I can't say I've looked in depth at the earlier ones, but this budget was full of massive errors that the chancellor completely ignored when challenged, the few that he did "defend" had his defence ultimately being "I'm going to ignore what you put and merely asset my correctness" something that they also did with several bills and their earlier statements.

    The stuff I remember distinctly is the ATA, which I believe was passed in the last parliament but labour still included in their manifesto pledges, which severely understands the costs and increased council tax by between 7 and 20 times, to which the response was basically "no we were right, you're wrong". One of the early statements seemed to suggest that the TSR government knows better than RL experts by declaring that certain forms of power generation are something like 0.01% of what the DECC declare; then going on in another to suggest that decreasing energy bills for the incompetent would not increase power bills for everybody else, despite those revenue cuts pushing the power companies to at best a break even position.

    We got a defence review that proposed doubling the GCHQ and SIS budgets because they didn't bother looking at the initial budge, they proposed funding the entire Afghan government because they don't seem to understand how departments or the treasury operates (recently going on to believe they can simply transfer funds from one department to another mid term) and funding all of this by cutting the trident budget by nearly 6x its operating cost. Needless to say that it was withdrawn without comment.

    We saw a statement from the FCO declaring withdrawal from the commonwealth to magically improve the human rights records of all the other members.

    When the ATA got its failed government amendment the government had no idea what they were even talking about, unable to even agree amongst themselves what they meant, and defending all criticism by ignoring what was said and just saying "supply and demand", even though their supply and demand model would have RL costs much much lower than they actually are.

    At this moment I cannot remember anything else off the top of my head but that is but a taster.

    As said earlier, the MoNC submitted is the nice version with the sections of the above omitted.

    Also there was no amendment to correct the errors, depending on what you were talking about. If the budget we cannot, if the ATA because the government pleaded for a chance to fix it and then it failed because it was frankly ****.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Saracen's Fez what do you have to say about this?

    As someone who was originally against this MoNC I am finding myself increasingly changing my mind.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Saracen's Fez what do you have to say about this?

    As someone who was originally against this MoNC I am finding myself increasingly changing my mind.
    If you want tomorrow I can link those things in

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If you want tomorrow I can link those things in

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'll take a closer look at some of the other statements, they're all the ones with "S" in the title right?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I'll take a closer look at some of the other statements, they're all the ones with "S" in the title right?
    Yep
    S for statements
    B for bills
    M for motions


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Yep
    S for statements
    B for bills
    M for motions


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Alright, cheers. That's why my petition went in as VP something then. Vote, Petition.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, and if submitted via the speaker they are put up as Pxx.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PMBs ought not be counted in comparing activity since they have usually been rejected by the party, hence being submitted as a PMB. Moreover, they are more often joke Bills. Furthermore, SOIs are often significantly more detailed and complex than Bills (compare the recent Defence statement to most Bills passed this term); I would count Bills and SOIs, but not motions or PMBs.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It is the attitude of taking things not that seriously which has led to declining standards in debate, bills, and engagement. If members cannot afford to take this game seriously those members should resign their seats to find something different to do; those members are ruining the very point of having a Model House of Commons.
    I must say, not for the first time, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The issue this house has is that there are some members who take themselves far too seriously which is why people get put off. The MHoC is ment to be fun and if you think that this is real then you need a reality check.

    Yes we are a place for debating but we don't have access to the figures that government officials do. When you consider that in the RL pass about 30 bills on average a year and they have AIDS and they themselves are paid to do this whereas we have about 15-20 truly active members and we still manage to present a median of 73 bills over that last 3 terms is a miracle, especially considering that we don't get paid and we give up our free time to do this.

    And even in terms of quality you get bills like this which is just 5 paragraphs and poorly thought out IMO.

    So in conclusion we are not real politicians and although we should encourage debate we should foster good relations and not be as hostile as you and some other members have been as that is what brings this house down and not the wanting to have fun.


    Tl/dr: have fun, be helpful and not rude and confrontational.

    EDIT: just to say I did a quick count and I belive that there were 194 bills presented to the houses of commons or lords last parliamentary session given all the MP's and lords who are in both houses that would be the equivalent of us only presenting 6.74 bills a year when (as already stated) we present ~73 bills a term or 146 bills a year. That means we are 21.67 times more productive then the RL parliament compared to our relitive size. So if you want quality you will have to basically kill the house and only let each party submit one bill a year and then let the government go wild on secondary legislation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Saracen's Fez what do you have to say about this?

    As someone who was originally against this MoNC I am finding myself increasingly changing my mind.
    I say if the opposition think they can do better then perhaps they can try and put together sufficient votes to form a government.

    We do not in the MHoC have a civil service or a team of full-time researchers to do this sort of thing. Some of us have lives outside TSR and we have limited time. You will not ever get items submitted to RL standard here because at the end of the day we are amateurs.

    Part of me would like to see a Con-UKIP coalition however, because I don't see them doing any better, but they have to put together the seats to make it sustainable.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I must say, not for the first time, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The issue this house has is that there are some members who take themselves far too seriously which is why people get put off. The MHoC is ment to be fun and if you think that this is real then you need a reality check.

    Yes we are a place for debating but we don't have access to the figures that government officials do. When you consider that in the RL pass about 30 bills on average a year and they have AIDS and they themselves are paid to do this whereas we have about 15-20 truly active members and we still manage to present a median of 73 bills over that last 3 terms is a miracle, especially considering that we don't get paid and we give up our free time to do this.

    And even in terms of quality you get bills like this which is just 5 paragraphs and poorly thought out IMO.

    So in conclusion we are not real politicians and although we should encourage debate we should foster good relations and not be as hostile as you and some other members have been as that is what brings this house down and not the wanting to have fun.


    Tl/dr: have fun, be helpful and not rude and confrontational.
    That is an... unfortunate... use of capital letters.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That is an... unfortunate... use of capital letters.
    PRSOM


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's pointless to compare these numbers because quantity isn't quality and I think we all agree that the latter is much more important (and once again, the numbers aren't even correct – I strongly encourage you to count the number of Government bills in the Division Lobby yourselves).

    The fact remains that we've specifically identified multiple errors the Government have made in their proposals, ranging from purely mad ones such as the early defence review or the nuclear planes motion, to things like the budget with figures pulled out of thin air. We are not arguing we can do more in terms of quantity, which is yet to be seen, but we can certainly do better in terms of quality because we (mainly Jammy Duel who miraculously does't get tired of your baloney) have been able to identify the errors that all members of the Government overlooked!

    If the collective knowledge and experience of the entire Government isn't enough to eliminate simple errors before their proposals are put in front of the House, they should resign. Clearly, they lack the necessary humility and self-awareness to do that, which is why I encourage the other parties (Andy98, barnetlad, Little Toy Gun, Kyx, TheDefiniteArticle, DMcGovern) to transcend party politics and base your upcoming vote on their performance rather than policies. If you help us get rid of this Government, the number of seats won't change so any subsequent right-wing proposals you may disagree with won't be more likely to pass – the only point of this is to have a proper, respectable Government befitting the word itself, instead of this mess.

    Lastly, looking at the current Cabinet which was reshuffled two days ago in reaction to this MoNC, along with a few hastily written pieces and more power given to the Liberals so that they wouldn't betray Labour, I invite you to have a look at the activity of Cabinet members:

    Secretary of State for Justice
    Secretary of State for Constitutional Reform, Devolution and International Development
    Secretary of State for Climate Change, Culture and Communications
    Secretary of State for Education
    Secretary of State for Transport
    Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    Chief Secretary to the Treasury

    7/14 = 50% of the Cabinet members are either completely inactive or just aye/nay voting robots. We have no one to truly represent justice, devolution, international development, climate change, education, transport, or work and pensions, we lack respective policies (plus no foreign policy, I believe), and we even hardly ever see those people post here! The whole thing is being run by seven people who tell the rest how and when to vote and this is supposed to be the Government? Why don't we scrap this simulation aspect and just become a lazy debating club instead?

    Thank you for your attention.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That is an... unfortunate... use of capital letters.
    :grumble: autocorrect.
 
 
 
  • 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.