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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    NB: Rakas21 is doing tonight's update but felt that administering this would be a conflict of interest so has asked me to, hence my posting of this thread.

    Motion of No Confidence in the Speaker
    Proposer: Rt Hon Obiejess MP (LAB)
    Seconders: Rt Hon PetrosAC MP (LIB), Rt Hon TheDefiniteArticle MP (LAB), Rt Hon SoggyCabbages MP (LAB), Rt Hon Conceited MP (LIB)

    That this House has no confidence in The Speaker. Rakas21 was elected on the 1st July and has not improved over the last three months to a level that is desired from a Speaker.

    Reason One

    Rakas21 has failed to complete voting review on time. The first voting review arrived two weeks late and the terrible decision to hold the second voting review six weeks later was made. This decision meant that two voting reviews were held over a period in which, according to the guidance document, there should have been three. This seems small, however, the outcome has affected the electoral makeup of the House. If the voting reviews had been held on time, the Greens would have lost their only seat because the voting average would have been below 70% in two voting reviews. If members support punishing the TSR Libertarian Party for gaining seats by breaking electoral rules, members should support Rakas21 interfering with a detailed process to help the Greens keep their seat.

    Reason Two

    Rakas21 is a lazy Speaker. Results are not being declared on time in Division; Hansard is not being updated, which is ironic because Rakas21 complained at previous Speakers for not updating it; and when members asks a question Rakas21 takes a long time to respond. See link 1 for evidence of this where Rakas21 took a week to respond to Jammy Duel. See link 2 for evidence of Rakas21 making false promises and excuses.

    Reason Three

    Rakas21 has displayed a lack of knowledge: he made mistakes about the number of words allowed in a by-election manifesto and posted an amendment that does not have the correct number of seconders. More worryingly, Rakas21 has cynically broken to Guidance Document to try to rush through an amendment before the last by-election. The amendment was posted early in the morning, members were not informed of the amendment being posted, and the amendment was sent to the Division Lobby before the two day discussion period had ended. The amendment failed, however, it showed Rakas21’s willingness to bend the rules for personal gain to give an amendment he believed in a chance of changing the rules of the by-election that had been called.

    Reason Four

    He was elected on a manifesto that he has not kept to. He promised to write amendments; keep a rolling voting record; reform the situation of proxies; reform seat sharing; deal with inactive parties and give the Speaker a veto. None of this has happened.

    Reason Five

    When members have raised concerns in the ‘Ask the Speaker’ thread, the responses have been rude and abrupt; and the complaints have only been taken seriously when made by cleaner members like Obiejess or TheDefiniteArticle. See link 3 for evidence of abrupt responses and issues not being taken seriously.

    Reason Six

    Rakas21 shows a lack of good judgement as Speaker. His policy of delaying posting items to spread things out has pushed activity off-site. Debates about bills in the queue are taking place off-site when they should be taking place on TSR, as they would be doing if the bills were posted. Delaying items when there are items in the queue prevents debate because the item posted on that day could be a inoffensive motion or amendment.

    For these reasons we believe Rakas21 is unfit to be Speaker.

    Link 1 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=74161344&postcoun t=835
    Link 2 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4171388&p=73671 962&post73671962

    Link 3 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=73460074&postcoun t=3195

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye - get him out
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    No. In my limited time back here I have seen nothing of Rakas that makes me think that there is anyone else who will do the job better. As an ex-speaker (twice in fact) I can attest to the amount of work that being speaker requires. This house cannot survive by repeatedly removing the people willing to put the hours that are necessary into keeping this house going but being unable to enjoy the activities of this house.

    Reason One is a concern. As I wasn't here at the time I would like to see Rakas' reasons, but this is a fairly big burden to put on the speaker. I hope that we can work on optimising this process through automation and that is something that Rakas and I are already discussing.

    Reason Two is petty. There have been reasons for delays outside of our speaker's control. Calling our speaker lazy simply does a disservice to the amount of time and effort the job requires, and with little thanks.

    The only one of the examples have seen from was the wrong number of seconders one. An easy mistake to make and one that really doesn't matter. It does make me wonder what reasons you really have for this motion when by point 3 you're being this petty.

    For reason 4 refer back to my comments on the amount of work the role needs. You write them if you want to. How much do you really expect from your Speaker?

    Reason 5 was bad, but we are all human and have human emotions and reactions. This happening too often would be a reason for a VoNC but this is not what I have seen. I have seen someone get frustrated and react negatively back to that person but quickly returned to being pleasant and helpful.

    For reason 6 I did that same thing as speaker. As did metrobreans, possibly the best speaker this house has seen. That the situation has now changed is obvious, and Rakas has taken the appropriate steps to address this issue.

    This is pointless, and this house has become petty and thankless of the efforts of the speaker. It is no surprise that the house is having the problems it currently does with speakers. Who would want the job? You will be hounded for every mistake, expected to be perfect and almost robotic. You will not be able to engage in the fun activities of the house and you will not even receive thanks for the effort you do put in. Nay, Nay, Nay.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    As Rakas' predecessor, seconding this was a tough decision for me to make. Ultimately, I do think the reasons listed justify the Vonc. That being said, I do still think it's a shame that we have so many voncs in the House, and Rakas has also had criticism levelled at him that has been unfair.

    Ultimately I've seconded this to ensure we get better quality Speakership - whether this is Rakas surviving and improving using the issues raised in the Vonc as feedback or a new Speaker being elected.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye

    Rakas has failed to meet his manifesto promises and overall has been a poor Speaker. His tenure as Speaker makes the last Speaker Petros look good and he was terrible!
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    Aye

    Rakas has failed to meet his manifesto promises and overall has been a poor Speaker. His tenure as Speaker makes the last Speaker Petros look good and he was terrible!
    Thanks?

    In all seriousness, comments like these aren't helpful. Regardless of whether you think Rakas has been good enough or not, he at least deserves respect for taking on the role and putting time into it
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Thanks?

    In all seriousness, comments like these aren't helpful. Regardless of whether you think Rakas has been good enough or not, he at least deserves respect for taking on the role and putting time into it

    I have nothing but respect for any member that takes the mantle of Speaker. However I'm allowed to criticize his actions as Speaker and he has been poor.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Thanks?

    In all seriousness, comments like these aren't helpful. Regardless of whether you think Rakas has been good enough or not, he at least deserves respect for taking on the role and putting time into it
    Fully agree.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    I have nothing but respect for any member that takes the mantle of Speaker. However I'm allowed to criticize his actions as Speaker and he has been poor.
    Then just say you believe he has been poor. The last sentence wasn't necessary, and it is sentences like those that make people think mhoc is petty and toxic when for the most part it isn't
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Then just say you believe he has been poor. The last sentence wasn't necessary, and it is sentences like those that make people think mhoc is petty and toxic when for the most part it isn't
    Ok I see your point
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    An absolute aye.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Cran should have probably mentioned that as per the guidance document this will up for three days at which point it will enter division for four days.

    I will continue to conduct business as speaker for as long as i am legally the speaker, including the voting review due Friday.

    I will of course not relinquish the chair willingly as things stand.

    I have written a comprehensive answer to all the points raised. Once i have been to the shop, eaten and checked it over i will post said reply in this thread.

    No hard feelings to most of you.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCFactor)
    An absolute aye.
    Any expansion. What do you feel i did wrong? What alternative course of action would you have had me take?

    As somebody who has never asked me to do anything differently, your exactly the type that i wish to understand.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    No. In my limited time back here I have seen nothing of Rakas that makes me think that there is anyone else who will do the job better. As an ex-speaker (twice in fact) I can attest to the amount of work that being speaker requires. This house cannot survive by repeatedly removing the people willing to put the hours that are necessary into keeping this house going but being unable to enjoy the activities of this house.

    Reason One is a concern. As I wasn't here at the time I would like to see Rakas' reasons, but this is a fairly big burden to put on the speaker. I hope that we can work on optimising this process through automation and that is something that Rakas and I are already discussing.

    Reason Two is petty. There have been reasons for delays outside of our speaker's control. Calling our speaker lazy simply does a disservice to the amount of time and effort the job requires, and with little thanks.

    The only one of the examples have seen from was the wrong number of seconders one. An easy mistake to make and one that really doesn't matter. It does make me wonder what reasons you really have for this motion when by point 3 you're being this petty.

    For reason 4 refer back to my comments on the amount of work the role needs. You write them if you want to. How much do you really expect from your Speaker?

    Reason 5 was bad, but we are all human and have human emotions and reactions. This happening too often would be a reason for a VoNC but this is not what I have seen. I have seen someone get frustrated and react negatively back to that person but quickly returned to being pleasant and helpful.

    For reason 6 I did that same thing as speaker. As did metrobreans, possibly the best speaker this house has seen. That the situation has now changed is obvious, and Rakas has taken the appropriate steps to address this issue.

    This is pointless, and this house has become petty and thankless of the efforts of the speaker. It is no surprise that the house is having the problems it currently does with speakers. Who would want the job? You will be hounded for every mistake, expected to be perfect and almost robotic. Nay, Nay, Nay.
    Hear, hear.

    I highly doubt that those who will be voting in favour of this motion would be capable of doing a better job than our current Speaker, Rakas, and I am willing to predict that - months down the line - the next Speaker will be subject to the same level of animosity, if not more. As somebody who did not vote for him and saw his Speakership with frustration in the beginning, I have grown in favour of him following the way he has listened to and addressed concerns from both me and other members of the house, most notably when it came to updates being delegated too much. Those who would disagree with that statement are the members who treat him with disrespect, and I would utterly reject the idea that the Speaker should have to accept abuse without returning it. Indeed, he has done what he came in to do in that regard.

    This could not be a stronger Nay on my part. I urge my fellow members to reconsider their positions and not put the house into chaos unnecessarily; this motion is a clear power grab from a certain member who I will not name. Rakas has done a good job as Speaker, having exercised his judgement as previous speakers have done without such hatred directed at them. Parts of this house merely want reasons to complain - don't listen to it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Any expansion. What do you feel i did wrong? What alternative course of action would you have had me take?

    As somebody who has never asked me to do anything differently, your exactly the type that i wish to understand.
    I didn't say. I take a similar approach to PetrosAC. I didn't really see a good consistency with regards to particular things on the mhoc. However, if you do stay on as speaker, I hope for you to take all the criticisms into account.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Oh dear.

    MoNC'ing every single Speaker elected has become a cult in this House. In recent times, we've seen Speakers have to deal with extreme levels of abuse that no one should ever have to experience. Rakas21 is undoubtedly not the greatest Speaker ever, I believe he has messed up, but I cannot think of anyone better who could replace him but yet those who second it don't have the balls to stand in an election except one ex-Speaker, which is surprising... Because he's made mistakes, bad judgements and messed up, we're humans for heavens sake. We're not programmed, we're not robots, we don't get everything right. Doesn't mean we should start attacking the Speaker day in and day out - the fact that he is sacrificing his time for a job like this he deserves better than the disgusting, rude, patronising attitude of some members of this House.

    I will be voting against this. If this motion succeeds, the next Speaker better do bloody well and not show any imperfections because that seems to be the message being portrayed by these ridiculous MoNCs.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I have to say I will be voting against this for because I genuinely believe he has improved with time. Yes he hasn't done things perfectly but I think he has shown improvement.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Oh dear.

    MoNC'ing every single Speaker elected has become a cult in this House. In recent times, we've seen Speakers have to deal with extreme levels of abuse that no one should ever have to experience. Rakas21 is undoubtedly not the greatest Speaker ever, I believe he has messed up, but I cannot think of anyone better who could replace him but yet those who second it don't have the balls to stand in an election except one ex-Speaker, which is surprising... Because he's made mistakes, bad judgements and messed up, we're humans for heavens sake. We're not programmed, we're not robots, we don't get everything right. Doesn't mean we should start attacking the Speaker day in and day out - the fact that he is sacrificing his time for a job like this he deserves better than the disgusting, rude, patronising attitude of some members of this House.

    I will be voting against this. If this motion succeeds, the next Speaker better do bloody well and not show any imperfections because that seems to be the message being portrayed by these ridiculous MoNCs.
    Although I am yet to develop a comprehensive and exhaustive opinion of Rakas, being relatively new, I am inclined to support the sentiment displayed by my Leader - being Speaker is undoubtedly a hard, time-consuming job; yes, it is clear that in some displayed circumstances Rakas may have been substandard in his due diligence but as my Leader pragmatically states: "we're humans for heavens sake. We're not programmed, we're not robots, we don't get everything right." We can only hope that these mistakes will not occur again.

    I, too, will be voting against this.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm disappointed that I have to vote aye on this.

    I have never previously voted against a Speaker in a MoNC, and I, like my friend CoffeeGeek above, am tired of the culture of repeated MoNCs in Speakers. However, Rakas has repeatedly ignored not only the GD, but also the Constitution. The Speaker is subservient to both, and their powers do not extend beyond those created in the Constitution: they are a Speaker, not a sovereign. Accordingly, when a Speaker acts, they should be willing to point to a constitutional (I use this to refer to both the Constitution and the GD) basis for doing so. Rakas has chosen not to justify his actions repeatedly, and there are a number of occasions where I feel there has been a blatant disregard of the limits of his powers. Laziness, to an extent, can be justified. Totalitarianism cannot be.

    The final straw was his decision to amend the timings surrounding a by-election and amendment just to ensure an amendment he liked would have the opportunity to pass. While this is not partisan, it certainly does not display the lack of bias required of a Speaker when carrying out their duties. Speakers may have opinions on amendments: they must not abuse process to maximise the impact of one, especially when doing so would have a substantial impact on the outcome of a by-election. This, alone, for me, justifies the MoNC, but there have been significant other problems which I'm sure othes will pick up on.

    Who comes next? I don't know. All I know is that I have never been so concerned by a Speaker, especially one I keenly voted for, as Rakas. I hope that he will not take this personally, as he has been, and will continue to be, a great asset to this House: provided he returns to the benches. I would also hope that he, Rakas21, would respond to this, and other criticisms, which he has generally failed to do to date.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:







    My people, tonight you have been presented with a motion which seeks to bring chaos upon our great House but one which as official parliamentary business i must take seriously.

    To deal with the issues raised…




    Point 1 - The claim is made here that i made an error early in the term which may have meant that the Green MP would have lost their seat.

    This allegation is partly correct. The proposers are correct that i had Cran complete the voting review rather than myself and then that i did not get a chance to go over it as i wished. Tthis caused delay which then affected the lack of an intermediate voting review between July and September.

    However, it is worth the House noting that afterward we did get back in line with the voting schedule (Sep 8th-Oct-6th-Nov 3rd) and not only that but i took full control of the voting reviews performing in an aesthetically pleasing and accurate manner. It is to be noted that with a total of 0 and 3 seat errors, my last two voting reviews have been among the most accurate in Mhoc history and this is testified by the voting review thread having 5 years of history and appeals.

    Point 2 - The case has been made here that i have not been prompt in three areas. Posting division results, replying and HANSARD.

    To address replying first i shall simply say that i reply when i come online, if i do not reply it is because i do not consider the business to be urgent or simply a means of denigrating the speakership. I don’t plan to do anything different since i do not believe i have done a thing wrong here.

    Regarding division results it is well known that i am gainfully employed and therefore chose to reduce what i do in the evening if not urgent. Now as much as some will really be excited to know whether the repeal of section 3.2.1(a) of the x act 1997 has passed immediately, i have seen no convincing case as to why what i have been doing has really caused anybody issue. It should be noted that by taking the time to check for duplicate/invalid votes at the time, this has contributed to historical accuracy in my voting reviews. I also add that if anything were urgent then i would of course give the result immediately.

    Regarding HANSARD i freely admit that this has not been completed owing to its time consuming nature. I am aware having badgered our esteemed seconder myself that there are some who want this to be made a priority. I can only aim to complete this by terms end at which point i am happy to be judged in Motion of Confidence for it.

    Point 3 - The point has been made here that i used self serving motivations to breach the constitution.

    In the context of the situation i feel that i made the correct decision. The guidance document states that by-elections for multiple seats are multiple choice, there appeared to be a number of people (including myself) who felt that this was a less than desirable format for the election and so i published the amendment (which was rejected in division). Posting in the morning that was purely down to logistics, i was in Manchester for business that evening and did not wish to involve Cran in what i knew had a degree of opposition attached to it..

    I respected the rejection in division, i took the message that people did not wish me to change course once i have declared something and i have not done that since. If i am to fall for doing what i thought was right, i can stomach that.

    Point 4 - The point has been made that i have not yet fulfilled manifesto commitments.

    That is to date true and like updating the HANSARD is something on the ‘to do’ list, there is not much i can say here that will appease the proposers on this. I would like to put a number of amendments before the House and it is gratifying to hear that the proposers of this motion yearn to see my platform on the statute, i eagerly await their votes of support when my amendments come to the House and division.

    Point 5 - The point has been made that i have responded abrasively to some members.

    This assertion is correct. After seeing the constant attack and demands placed on the esteemed former speaker seconding this very motion i campaigned on a platform of bringing members of a certain ilk into line and for the first month or so i took a very aggressive tone to them and essentially treated them with the same level of respect that they had shown previous speakers.

    As much as members disliked this tone i would suggest that we compare the manner members addressed the speaker with now, to the manner in which they spoke to our esteemed seconder. Objectively (the last few days aside) my approach was a success and our relations were about as good as they had been (though admittedly skin deep as we see today). Nige had stopped complaining and indeed we were very civil, Connor had made a serious attempt to change his tone to one i consider respectful and Joe had ceased his attacks. Gladstone of course is now under a party/MP ban but after his time away had also stepped into line.

    Now it takes two to tango and so i shan’t claim too much credit but my people, i ask you from your own observations to evaluate the last two months of my speakership with how they addressed the last speakers at this timeframe

    Point 6 - The point has been made that by only posting one motion per day i am to be blamed for the fact that some impatient members have already debated the bill on Skype.

    Needless to say i defend my position here. There was absolutely nothing besides impatience to force a discussion on Skype and i should not be punished for spreading activity nor not taking Skype into account. Skype is not an official part of the Mhoc and nor is it linked constitutionally. Indeed i did suggest that an amendment should be passed to force speakers to take Skype into account, but it was met with a degree of anger that i did not capitulate.

    I finally wish to say to the seconders that i accept your differing opinions and bear you no ill will. Though Conceited and Soggy have never publicly aired their concerns it is their own volition to support this motion if they so wish. In our other seconders we have an esteemed former speaker and TDA, a member i have huge respect for. The proposer and Nige of course have been adding to a MoNC list since at least early September (the revision history feature of Google Docs is great), we can only hope that their intent is pure.

    My people, it is clear simply from the names supporting this that i have not have lived up to some people's expectations and for that i am deeply conciliatory. It is to be noted though that my speakership has not been for nought, my updates are daily, almost all in the 6-10pm range, pornographically aesthetic (yeah, you can admit it) and like my voting reviews, highly accurate. When i have faced a decision i have to my credit been clear, decisive and kept to my word, when asked to change what i do (delegating updates for example) i have always considered the merits and though i have not always agreed to everything (linking to the next reading in closed bills for example i consider a needless waste of time in the context of the update and speakers chamber) i have i think been fair. Indeed it is notable also that early in the term i made several moves to appease people (namely not giving an opinion on anything even in the commons bar) and that for most of the last two months, i have not treated members in an aggressive manner.

    My people, what you see before you is an attempt to foster chaos upon the House (be that through somebody who will let certain members run riot or through temperamentally unfit candidates for speaker). While there are credible reasons to oppose my speakership i ask you to consider that the time when most of these points was most valid has passed and in recent weeks i had objectively done very little wrong. I ask that this House deems this an improper time to make judgement on my speakership, i campaigned on the promise that i would be speaker for a minimum of six months, allow me to keep that promise to you and pass judgement on me at the fit and proper time (the Motion of Confidence starting next term).

    My people, i await your verdict.
 
 
 
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.