Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    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.
    I would like to clearly state two things here.

    The first is that the by-election timing was not affected and i did not ever propose to amend it. What i did do was breach the confines of the guidance document on timing yes, but i would also make it firmly clear that it was not simply because i liked it and that it was context dependent (the amendment had to exit division by the start of the by-election), in that same context i would have done the same for any amendment, even one i disagreed with (though i imagine that makes it worse for you).

    There's not much to say here. While i certainly respect the constitution (indeed that is why we got into that particular situation) i believe in common sense and hence take the view that things are legal until they are not (or sufficient opposition has been displayed). That does mean for example that while i think there are strong common sense grounds for a 6pm next day deadline on actions, your right that there is no written constitutional amendment for it (partly because the next speaker for example may choose to do everything at midday or midnight ect..).

    I certainly do not take your actions personally and my opinion of you is certainly no lower than the start of the term. You make judgement based on evidence, mostly in a clear and impartial manner and though we have differing opinions i have always thought that it you harden your stances on a few issues, you could be a viable future speaker.

    Indeed of all the reasons to attack my speakership, yours are the ones i would be most content to fall on my sword for (because i did what i deemed was right for the good of the House).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I've seconded this to ensure we get better quality Speakership.
    It's a shame you didn't ensure that while it was your turn, isn't it?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    It's a shame you didn't ensure that while it was your turn, isn't it?
    Ayyyyy

    But seriously, my Speakership is irrelevant here. I've already admitted that I wasn't up to it which is why I resigned regardless of the VoC
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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.
    I think this goes a little beyond imperfection with even the simplest of roles apparently being incredibly difficult and as little effort as possible seems to be put in to the job. Threads frequently remain unlocked, results can go days after the close of a poll without any result being declared, the results when declared often not making it into the update. There is a clear reluctance to answer questions, simple tasks take weeks of pestering to be done, for instance saying which seats were highlighted in the first (late) voting review, an answer that should have been able to be given immediately. We have seen outright refusal to answer questions because he got word that this might be happening.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Ayyyyy

    But seriously, my Speakership is irrelevant here. I've already admitted that I wasn't up to it which is why I resigned regardless of the VoC
    I thought it was just to make the scary numbers go away! Never mind, I was just surprised to see your name up there. Same goes for people who had been defending you and adam9317 before the inevitable happened.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    x
    This is an excellent post. I've got to say, if I wasn't already decided, I'd be tempted to have confidence on the basis of this. If you do continue as Speaker, I'd request that you continue justifying decisions like this when requested to.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I think this goes a little beyond imperfection with even the simplest of roles apparently being incredibly difficult and as little effort as possible seems to be put in to the job. Threads frequently remain unlocked, results can go days after the close of a poll without any result being declared, the results when declared often not making it into the update. There is a clear reluctance to answer questions, simple tasks take weeks of pestering to be done, for instance saying which seats were highlighted in the first (late) voting review, an answer that should have been able to be given immediately. We have seen outright refusal to answer questions because he got word that this might be happening.
    I should say that even when i have not included them in the result section, i have simply linked to post in the speakers chamber containing them all.

    I did actually answer Nige's question afterward. Your post was not a question.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)






    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.
    Hear, hear!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    WILL Abstentions be allowed? I am very much in two minds about this. Whilst there are some good arguments to get rid of him, it has only been a few months, however it remains a question as to whether he will follow the constitution if he remains and if he will do things properly and with decorum.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    WILL Abstentions be allowed? I am very much in two minds about this. Whilst there are some good arguments to get rid of him, it has only been a few months, however it remains a question as to whether he will follow the constitution if he remains and if he will do things properly and with decorum.
    Yeah, the vote takes place under the usual voting rules.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. I will stand in defence of you, Mr Speaker, against the adopted culture of the House in which it has become customary to issue a VoNC against the Speakership. This is nothing short of a malicious powergrab and I implore members of both sides of the House to say no to the VoNC culture and keep the Speaker in the chair.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    A few comments to the original motion:

    Point 1: The lateness of the first review was regrettable. I don't have any great issue with the Speaker's decision to delay the second review though given this was announced more or less when the previous first review was completed – the one truly bad decision IMO would be reverting to the original planned timetable and having an abbreviated voting period.

    Point 2 is valid, with the exception of Hansard, where the wiki issue is a problem. I do hope that someone has been preparing a version that can be copied and pasted into Hansard if and when it becomes editable again. (Here's a thought: would the CT be willing to copy and paste something over that had been prepared for them?)

    Point 3: I can forgive the odd mistake from time to time, and it's ridiculous to start proposing a VoNC every time the Speaker makes an error. I do take issue with the handling of the by-election amendment, however, and my serious complaint is the failure to inform MPs that voting had opened, either with a post in the thread or a timely PM. The fact that this episode took place in relation to an amendment for which the Speaker had implicitly declared his support does have to raise questions of integrity. As an aside, the failure to hyperlink to new readings and votes is a retrograde step that I would appreciate being reversed.

    Point 4 I'm somewhat undecided on. Whilst it's undoubtedly fact, I must admit that I'm not sure that many of the proposed proposals are desirable, so I'm not necessarily complaining that no progress has been made.

    Point 5: Whilst I appreciate there are some members who particularly enjoy being a thorn in the Speaker's side, as I know all too well myself, there have also been plenty of occasions where I feel the complaints raised by these members have been legitimate grievances.

    Point 6: I can't say I support the policy of holding back items to drip-feed them into the House, and go as far as to wonder whether this actually causes fewer items to be written overall.

    Finally, I do wish that we had a system where speakers were challenged by an individual rather than VoNCed. That way we would be able to compare the alternatives and the status quo without having to guess.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    A few comments to the original motion:

    Point 1: The lateness of the first review was regrettable. I don't have any great issue with the Speaker's decision to delay the second review though given this was announced more or less when the previous first review was completed – the one truly bad decision IMO would be reverting to the original planned timetable and having an abbreviated voting period.

    Point 2 is valid, with the exception of Hansard, where the wiki issue is a problem. I do hope that someone has been preparing a version that can be copied and pasted into Hansard if and when it becomes editable again. (Here's a thought: would the CT be willing to copy and paste something over that had been prepared for them?)

    Point 3: I can forgive the odd mistake from time to time, and it's ridiculous to start proposing a VoNC every time the Speaker makes an error. I do take issue with the handling of the by-election amendment, however, and my serious complaint is the failure to inform MPs that voting had opened, either with a post in the thread or a timely PM. The fact that this episode took place in relation to an amendment for which the Speaker had implicitly declared his support does have to raise questions of integrity. As an aside, the failure to hyperlink to new readings and votes is a retrograde step that I would appreciate being reversed.

    Point 4 I'm somewhat undecided on. Whilst it's undoubtedly fact, I must admit that I'm not sure that many of the proposed proposals are desirable, so I'm not necessarily complaining that no progress has been made.

    Point 5: Whilst I appreciate there are some members who particularly enjoy being a thorn in the Speaker's side, as I know all too well myself, there have also been plenty of occasions where I feel the complaints raised by these members have been legitimate grievances.

    Point 6: I can't say I support the policy of holding back items to drip-feed them into the House, and go as far as to wonder whether this actually causes fewer items to be written overall.

    Finally, I do wish that we had a system where speakers were challenged by an individual rather than VoNCed. That way we would be able to compare the alternatives and the status quo without having to guess.
    This would be a good amendment actually, maybe with the challenger needing backing from 10 MPS to ensure that any challenge/election is worthwhile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)






    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.
    I massively respect this response. I freely admit that I was no good as Speaker and I also believe that you have not lived up to our, perhaps high, expectations, and I will be voting accordingly. That being said, should you survive I hope you can continue in the manner in which you have responded to this - with dignity and good grace, and eventually begin to live up to the expectation and your manifesto pledges.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    WILL Abstentions be allowed? I am very much in two minds about this. Whilst there are some good arguments to get rid of him, it has only been a few months, however it remains a question as to whether he will follow the constitution if he remains and if he will do things properly and with decorum.
    It should be noted that only on one occasion did i go against the timings laid in the guidance document. I don't tend to make a habit of it.

    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    A few comments to the original motion:

    Point 1: The lateness of the first review was regrettable. I don't have any great issue with the Speaker's decision to delay the second review though given this was announced more or less when the previous first review was completed – the one truly bad decision IMO would be reverting to the original planned timetable and having an abbreviated voting period.

    Point 2 is valid, with the exception of Hansard, where the wiki issue is a problem. I do hope that someone has been preparing a version that can be copied and pasted into Hansard if and when it becomes editable again. (Here's a thought: would the CT be willing to copy and paste something over that had been prepared for them?)

    Point 3: I can forgive the odd mistake from time to time, and it's ridiculous to start proposing a VoNC every time the Speaker makes an error. I do take issue with the handling of the by-election amendment, however, and my serious complaint is the failure to inform MPs that voting had opened, either with a post in the thread or a timely PM. The fact that this episode took place in relation to an amendment for which the Speaker had implicitly declared his support does have to raise questions of integrity. As an aside, the failure to hyperlink to new readings and votes is a retrograde step that I would appreciate being reversed.

    Point 4 I'm somewhat undecided on. Whilst it's undoubtedly fact, I must admit that I'm not sure that many of the proposed proposals are desirable, so I'm not necessarily complaining that no progress has been made.

    Point 5: Whilst I appreciate there are some members who particularly enjoy being a thorn in the Speaker's side, as I know all too well myself, there have also been plenty of occasions where I feel the complaints raised by these members have been legitimate grievances.

    Point 6: I can't say I support the policy of holding back items to drip-feed them into the House, and go as far as to wonder whether this actually causes fewer items to be written overall.

    Finally, I do wish that we had a system where speakers were challenged by an individual rather than VoNCed. That way we would be able to compare the alternatives and the status quo without having to guess.
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    This would be a good amendment actually, maybe with the challenger needing backing from 10 MPS to ensure that any challenge/election is worthwhile
    Regarding point 2, Cran has created one to see us through. It is just quite out of date. Once that is back up to date (end of this Parliament is the obvious target) then as Financier posted in Ask The Speaker, he will be given access to the beta test of the new wiki and is willing to update until it becomes official (at which point whoever is speaker at the time will then update as normal).

    See my reply to TDA for point 3.

    Point 5 is actually very much out of date and adds to the questioning of why i am being attacked now and not when i was at my weakest in early September. It is true that after seeing what a few members had done to Petros and to a lesser extent previous speakers i did campaign on the premise of bringing those people into line and for the first month or two i was therefore extremely aggressive to them, firstly because i was treating them with the level of respect they had treated prior speakers and secondly because at one point i was trying to provoke a direct confrontation with Nige and Joe.

    Around six weeks ago though it does appear that we got past all that. Nige played nice in public, Connor has actually made a serious attempt to cast off his former reputation, Joe stopped complaining and even Gladstone had been quiet (he would of course go on to be convicted of duping). Since then, my dealings with everybody have been perfectly civil.

    Now i'm not sure if my approach early in the term went too far (it probably did) but eventually it does appear that whether they got bored of having somebody more inclined to tell them to stick a finger in their orifice than capitulate or whether my approach actually brought them into line.. the end result was a positive one for us all (until this week of course although to be fair, members are being far better behaved than some MoNC's).

    I would contest that it does not on the grounds that i do recall it being a policy that Jarred followed and back then we once had two and a half weeks worth of items. In addition i have done it since the start of the term and activity did increase in month two. Without giving too much away i am firmly convinced that lackluster sub-forum activity in most parties is far more to blame than me.

    So long as there was a time limit between them and the same person could not challenge again in the same term it could be interesting although you run the risk of a situation akin to the budgets we have now.. if you don't have it out by two months into the term then people start to whine even if there's no particular rush. One could have say a 3 member panel who could rule whether a claim resulting in an election was just.

    I have also thought that if members are not willing to write amendments on stuff like bill queing or the 6pm deadline it could be prudent to have an advisory petition.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I must say, you have held up to scrutiny rather well and it would be criminal of me to further support this.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I must say, you have held up to scrutiny rather well and it would be criminal of me to further support this.
    I'm rather good at the politics part of things.

    It's different when your defending the speakership but the most fun i ever had on here was when Saource tried to MoNC my (well Qwertish since i'd just stopped being PM) government, the attempt to form a grand coalition with Labour was pretty fun too (lots of convincing and though i can't as speaker, back then it was about plain bribing people with votes on bills).
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I’m torn on this.
    Do I belive that Rakas deserves this? Yes I do, I think that everything but point 6 is valid and why I am considering voting aye.
    However, I cannot think of anyone who would do any better than rakas as speaker at present.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    Nay. I will stand in defence of you, Mr Speaker, against the adopted culture of the House in which it has become customary to issue a VoNC against the Speakership. This is nothing short of a malicious powergrab and I implore members of both sides of the House to say no to the VoNC culture and keep the Speaker in the chair.
    Imagine my shock when another Tory makes the exact same argument as his comrades.

    Do you lot even want to hide the fact you are just making excuses to protect one of your own? At least use some original points rather than just mimicking CG's nonsense!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I’m torn on this.
    Do I belive that Rakas deserves this? Yes I do, I think that everything but point 6 is valid and why I am considering voting aye.
    However, I cannot think of anyone who would do any better than rakas as speaker at present.
    The incumbent Deputy Speaker would be more than adequate - I also feel it is time to give Jacob his holy grail and see how he fairs, he wouldn't get long until the mandatory VoC at the start of next term anyway meaning if he is as bad as you think he'll be you can eject him quickly.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.