Turn on thread page Beta

A152 – Motions of No Confidence Amendment watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    A152 – Motions of No Confidence Amendment
    Motions of No Confidence Amendment


    Proposed by: JoeL1994 (Lab)
    Seconded by: Airmed MP (Lib), mobbsy91 MP (Con), joecphillips MP (Lib), adam9317 MP (Con), EricAteYou MP (Lab), Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP).

    This House shall adjust the Constitution as follows:

    In the Constitution, replace:

    “10.4 A Motion of No Confidence can be called in The Speaker, The Deputy Speaker(s) or The Government at any time, unless:—”

    With:

    “10.4 A Motion of No Confidence can be called in The Speaker or The Deputy Speaker(s) at any time, unless:—”

    Add to the Constitution under Motions of No Confidence:

    “10.5 A Motion of No Confidence can be called in The Government at any time, unless:—
    10.5.1 a Motion of No Confidence has already been called and failed to pass against the same Government in that term;
    10.5.2 4 weeks have not passed since the Government was formed;”

    Following numbering shall be edited accordingly.


    Notes

    In under 2 years we have seen 6 MoNCs called against various Governments with only 2 being successful. Use of the MoNC has meant people are too trigger happy and unwilling to give Governments a chance, especially during times of off-site pressure such as exams or other deadlines. This disrupts general business in the House, making it increasingly difficult for parties to focus on motions, bills, statements and debates, as we should be. It is hoped this amendment will stop those who are upset from missing out at a General Election from prematurely attempting to seize power. A MoNC should be a last resort when there is a real chance of it passing due to support from across the House due to a lack of faith in the Government. This amendment seeks to correct the current fault in the system, preventing MoNCs from being repeatedly called against a single Government as well as editing wording to avoid any confusion over ambiguity in the Constitution.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I'm sure Fez would find some way to argue he can have several per term

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Only one MoNC per term? Absolutely not!!! It gives the government free reign to be as truly awful as they want because someone had an itchy trigger finder.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Only one MoNC per term? Absolutely not!!! It gives the government free reign to be as truly awful as they want because someone had an itchy trigger finder.
    No, because 5 people had an itchy trigger finger, it will stop moronic MoNCs and if they do happen then maybe they will think harder next time

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. Simply a terrible idea - if a MoNC fails, it should act as a wake-up call, not a carte blanche for that government to do **** all for the rest of the term. It also potentially has worrying implications for parties withdrawing from governments - if the Liberals withdrew from the current ConLib government (nudge nudge wink wink), it is unclear that this would not remain as the same 'government'.

    Also, the notion that MoNCs are bad is simply wrong. They encourage debate and are interesting for that reason. The more MoNCs with legitimate (read: non-partisan) grounds, the better.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, because 5 people had an itchy trigger finger, it will stop moronic MoNCs and if they do happen then maybe they will think harder next time

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    None of the MoNCs this term or last were moronic. Activity levels from those govts were unacceptable IMO.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay from me

    I Think a limit of 2 per term is more reasonable
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    No, because 5 people had an itchy trigger finger, it will stop moronic MoNCs and if they do happen then maybe they will think harder next time

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree they happen too often but limiting them makes no sense. Maybe some justifiable, non-partisan, rules regarding their calling should be in place but not this.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. Simply a terrible idea - if a MoNC fails, it should act as a wake-up call, not a carte blanche for that government to do **** all for the rest of the term. It also potentially has worrying implications for parties withdrawing from governments - if the Liberals withdrew from the current ConLib government (nudge nudge wink wink), it is unclear that this would not remain as the same 'government'.

    Also, the notion that MoNCs are bad is simply wrong. They encourage debate and are interesting for that reason. The more MoNCs with legitimate (read: non-partisan) grounds, the better.
    If the liberals left the cons would be automatically kicked out of government.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Leaning towards nay.

    Once we know the result of Nigel's whole new constitution&GD amendment, I will write an amendment about having votes of investiture which I believe will lead to more stable governments.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    If the liberals left the cons would be automatically kicked out of government.
    On what grounds?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with hard limits, but we should aim to end this ’MoNC culture’ through peer pressure.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Nay from me

    I Think a limit of 2 per term is more reasonable
    I was thinking the same.

    One is a bit too extreme, but you could get away with two.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    On what grounds?
    A re-discovered amendment which was passed and never repealed but also never put into the GD on coalition break up. If a party withdraws from coalition a 7 day coalition negotiationing period begins. Either a new government is formed or a GD is called at the end of the period.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    I disagree with hard limits, but we should aim to end this ’MoNC culture’ through peer pressure.
    You mean life_peer pressure
    But I completely agree with you and look forward to entering the lobby together.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    A re-discovered amendment which was passed and never repealed but also never put into the GD on coalition break up. If a party withdraws from coalition a 7 day coalition negotiationing period begins. Either a new government is formed or a GD is called at the end of the period.
    There was also an amendment passed saying that if the Tories are in government MoNCs aren't allowed.

    In other words, citation needed

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There was also an amendment passed saying that if the Tories are in government MoNCs aren't allowed.

    In other words, citation needed

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Its all in ATS, the speaker confirmed it to be the case and now you can find 'Coalition Break Up' in the GD and added to the text of the constitution under General Elections if you want to check.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with four weeks, indeed would accept six or eight, but not the one per Parliament. Or ask for ten names before it can be called.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It will quite simply stop those members who are unhappy about not being in govt that term from throwing their toys out of the pram, having a hissy fit and trying to get into govt through this mechanism!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    It will quite simply stop those members who are unhappy about not being in govt that term from throwing their toys out of the pram, having a hissy fit and trying to get into govt through this mechanism!
    Yeah, but what if we have a properly bad majority government which defeats an MoNC after a month and then continues to be bad (I mean objectively, i.e. no output whatsoever, missing votes, etc.)? There would be no mechanism to replace it.

    I agree with the sentiment, the implementation just needs some work.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Yeah, but what if we have a properly bad majority government which defeats an MoNC after a month and then continues to be bad (I mean objectively, i.e. no output whatsoever, missing votes, etc.)? There would be no mechanism to replace it.

    I agree with the sentiment, the implementation just needs some work.
    That is a fair point I must agree to; but a VONC will only pass if we had a very united govt etc which may not always be the case.
    Although when we look back to the last few terms, its only been once in the last 13 parliaments that we have had 2 successful VONC- yet however many unsuccessful!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: August 10, 2016

2,254

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.