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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    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!
    Well, let me be clear to the right honourable gentleman, there is no one that is sufficiently competent to take the chair. Not the "proposer" (may as well say seconder), not the actual proposer, not the seconders with the exception of TheDefiniteArticle but he has repeatedly made his intention of not taking the chair clear. So, who does the right honourable gentleman intend to suggest? Because I am almost certain that it's one of the people that seconded it or even the man that proposed this to begin with. As I said, this is a malicious and deceitful powergrab and the right honourable members of the House should see past this deception.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    Well, let me be clear to the right honourable gentleman, there is no one that is sufficiently competent to take the chair. Not the "proposer" (may as well say seconder), not the actual proposer, not the seconders with the exception of TheDefiniteArticle but he has repeatedly made his intention of not taking the chair clear. So, who does the right honourable gentleman intend to suggest? Because I am almost certain that it's one of the people that seconded it or even the man that proposed this to begin with. As I said, this is a malicious and deceitful powergrab and the right honourable members of the House should see past this deception.
    Jacob has always been a viable candidate for speaker, but people dismiss him based on name and reputation.

    He has a fanatical dedication to the house matched by none; he has a fountain of knowledge pertaining to the constitution and guidance document; and he has the polite and gentlemanly attitude to deal with all members in a neutral and fair manner, unlike our incumbent.

    So I do believe that my right honourable friend and his party here are using Jacob's involvement in this VoNC as a proverbial "dead kitten" - he intends to distract from the shambles that is Rakas' speakership in order to keep a Tory loyalist in the chair; oh how easy it is to buy loyalty, I ask the house to cast their collective minds back to the awards at the start of term; in particular the farcical choice to give CG the Speaker's Award for doing absolutely nothing in Parliament XXIV and losing 5 seats for his party in the general election.

    This, my friends, is the real plot at hand. I implore the house to accept incompetence no longer - vote aye on this motion and dare to dream of a better speaker and a better MHOC.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    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!
    In your entire time of being here, at any point have you ever approved of a speaker.

    I certainly can't remember you ever complementing one.

    (Original post by Connor27)
    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.
    Let's be serious here.

    I actively chose to treat you in abrasive manner, Nige on the other hand has actually had tantrums when things have not gone his way (when the Tories chose coalition with the Liberals for example). He is temperamentally unfit for the chair and having watched him for three years i don't think he is aware of the level of rigidity and restraint that this chair imposes on you. Hell, i have trouble with the restraint and he's far more opinionated than me.

    Not only that but the chair requires that members on the left and right can trust you. Nige screwed Mobbsy within weeks of being let into the party, he screwed UU within weeks of being let into the party and Nige is now trying to screw me, just weeks after we've made our peace (and given that my lowest point was early September, there's no real argument for why he should have pushed it now).

    Nige may have improved a little over time (he at least wants to change) but his actions this very term demonstrate without doubt that he can still not be trusted.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously I cant offer an opinion because I haven’t been around. But I saw this and just thought that it sounded a hell of a lot like my speakership! And I think Rakas’ followup comes across very well.

    Both updating Hansard and the voting records is an absolute ball ache that takes ages and is really ****ing boring. I did develop some tools to automate this work. Next time I fire up my old computer I’ll see if I can share it because it does save whole hours every month!

    Also I’m pretty sure I invented the whole idea of the queue, or at least ‘formalised’ it for lack of a better term. It makes complete sense, most people have lives and will only spend x amount of time on TSR in a day. You WILL get diminishing returns on activity if for example you allow the House to get 7 items in one day and then nothing for the rest of the week. It’s a shame that it has driven activity offsite, the offsite communications that flooded into this place just as I was leaving have had a profound negative impact on this place, but I won’t bring that debate up again!

    Are the reasons for this VONC more due to an underlying feeling that something isn’t quite right about the Speakership, rather than the given reasons? That could still be a valid issue if true, and you might as well not shy away from it.

    Still, I hope for the sake of House stability that everyone can work this out. Yet another Speaker election would be bad news.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    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.
    I do not have a vote but have interaction with the Speaker as the leader of the Green Party. I agree with the honourable Member that the Speaker has improved in carrying out the responsibilities of the post. I think the nature of his response to the reasons put for the VoNC supports this.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In your entire time of being here, at any point have you ever approved of a speaker.

    I certainly can't remember you ever complementing one.



    Let's be serious here.

    I actively chose to treat you in abrasive manner, Nige on the other hand has actually had tantrums when things have not gone his way (when the Tories chose coalition with the Liberals for example). He is temperamentally unfit for the chair and having watched him for three years i don't think he is aware of the level of rigidity and restraint that this chair imposes on you. Hell, i have trouble with the restraint and he's far more opinionated than me.

    Not only that but the chair requires that members on the left and right can trust you. Nige screwed Mobbsy within weeks of being let into the party, he screwed UU within weeks of being let into the party and Nige is now trying to screw me, just weeks after we've made our peace (and given that my lowest point was early September, there's no real argument for why he should have pushed it now).

    Nige may have improved a little over time (he at least wants to change) but his actions this very term demonstrate without doubt that he can still not be trusted.
    If I am being honest, I have always rated Saracen's Fez as a superb example of speakership as he held the chair at the start of my time here.

    Likewise, I have always praised Adam9317 as an underrated speaker who had to follow up on such an excellent standard that made him look a lot worse than he actually was.

    Petros and I had our disagreements but I respect his dedication and willingness to reform the house - he just made too many blunders and went about his reforms in totally the wrong way.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Jacob has always been a viable candidate for speaker, but people dismiss him based on name and reputation.

    He has a fanatical dedication to the house matched by none; he has a fountain of knowledge pertaining to the constitution and guidance document; and he has the polite and gentlemanly attitude to deal with all members in a neutral and fair manner, unlike our incumbent.

    So I do believe that my right honourable friend and his party here are using Jacob's involvement in this VoNC as a proverbial "dead kitten" - he intends to distract from the shambles that is Rakas' speakership in order to keep a Tory loyalist in the chair; oh how easy it is to buy loyalty, I ask the house to cast their collective minds back to the awards at the start of term; in particular the farcical choice to give CG the Speaker's Award for doing absolutely nothing in Parliament XXIV and losing 5 seats for his party in the general election.

    This, my friends, is the real plot at hand. I implore the house to accept incompetence no longer - vote aye on this motion and dare to dream of a better speaker and a better MHOC.
    We need to have a Speaker we can trust. As you said, Mr Speaker, he pushed the previous leader of my party into the deep end. He pushed UU into the deep end as well. And now he's targeting Rakas21, The thing is, this all took place after he supposedly made peace with the relevant people. So when he becomes Speaker, how long until he screws the House over? His current track record shows him to be less than trustworthy. But yet you continue to have faith in him?

    We need a Speaker we can trust. We need a Speaker that can hold up to criticism. We need a Speaker that won't lose his mind when things don't go their way. We need Rakas, not Jacob.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Gosh! I'm not sure on this one, I guess I will abstain until I can decide one way or another.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    I would suggest the same rules as for triggering a VoNC, so four seconders plus the challenger. I would then envisage a system where other interested individuals can come forward and submit a candidacy before voting begins.

    In response to Rakas's point, I believe there's a four-week period after a speaker survives a VoNC before a second one can be proposed. Again this would be carried over to the challenge system. There could be a longer limit (of perhaps eight weeks or longer) between two challenges launched by the same individual (though they would be able to come in as an additional challenger once someone else had launched a challenge – provided they could find someone willing to do so).

    I'll probably have a look at the existing text a bit later and put a draft together.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    I would suggest the same rules as for triggering a VoNC, so four seconders plus the challenger. I would then envisage a system where other interested individuals can come forward and submit a candidacy before voting begins.

    In response to Rakas's point, I believe there's a four-week period after a speaker survives a VoNC before a second one can be proposed. Again this would be carried over to the challenge system. There could be a longer limit (of perhaps eight weeks or longer) between two challenges launched by the same individual (though they would be able to come in as an additional challenger once someone else had launched a challenge – provided they could find someone willing to do so).

    I'll probably have a look at the existing text a bit later and put a draft together.
    The period is two weeks in which a Vonc can't be triggered again.

    I'm happy to second once it is written
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The period is two weeks in which a Vonc can't be triggered again.

    I'm happy to second once it is written
    I'd be tempted to extend that to four in any case.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well. When I saw that a MoNC had finally been proposed, I was glad if I am honest. I supported you at the leadership election, but from what I have seen you have not lived up to the some-want unwarranted high standards set in this house.

    Having read the the Motion and its responses, I am now torn. I dont know whether or not to support this or not, and I am not the most active member around these parts.

    However, from what I have seen from you as Speaker, we have seen you be abrasive to members because of personal disagreements. I fully understand that people in this house are needy, difficult and desperate for the attention that an argument brings, however you are speaker and need to be above that.

    I never agreed with the attempt to force through a change to by-election voting.

    I dont want the job of speaker, I will never want the job and I doubt I could do any better than the current speaker, however that does not mean I should not say when I think they are doing a bad job.

    I will be supporting this motion, somewhat regrettably considering the high regard I held for the speaker before his ascension to the chair.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Well. When I saw that a MoNC had finally been proposed, I was glad if I am honest. I supported you at the leadership election, but from what I have seen you have not lived up to the some-want unwarranted high standards set in this house.

    Having read the the Motion and its responses, I am now torn. I dont know whether or not to support this or not, and I am not the most active member around these parts.

    However, from what I have seen from you as Speaker, we have seen you be abrasive to members because of personal disagreements. I fully understand that people in this house are needy, difficult and desperate for the attention that an argument brings, however you are speaker and need to be above that.

    I never agreed with the attempt to force through a change to by-election voting.

    I dont want the job of speaker, I will never want the job and I doubt I could do any better than the current speaker, however that does not mean I should not say when I think they are doing a bad job.

    I will be supporting this motion, somewhat regrettably considering the high regard I held for the speaker before his ascension to the chair.
    "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)."
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    "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)."
    Just 8 days ago members had to speak out around the fact you ignored a question from a member just because you disliked them...
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    After some thought, I realised that my membership on the mhoc is not enough for me to critique Rakas. I don't know what makes a good Speaker, as I have only seen 1. Therefore, I wish for my vote to be changed to Abstain, as I really have no reason to state an opinion about an issue I know nothing about.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    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.
    He could do some real damage though.
    My fear with Jacob is that he’d let speakership consume him and his real life would suffer. Also I’m not sure how much u trust him to keep secrets in sub fora
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    Just 8 days ago members had to speak out around the fact you ignored a question from a member just because you disliked them...
    I felt there was no point answering it there when the MoNC was coming (i had access to the old MoNC document since it's creation) so i may have been dismissive but it was hardly an urgent question. I also did answer the question when you asked.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I felt there was no point answering it there when the MoNC was coming (i had access to the old MoNC document since it's creation) so i may have been dismissive but it was hardly an urgent question. I also did answer the question when you asked.
    That’s the problem you only answer questions when people you like ask
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I felt there was no point answering it there when the MoNC was coming (i had access to the old MoNC document since it's creation) so i may have been dismissive but it was hardly an urgent question. I also did answer the question when you asked.
    Thats exactly the point though. It should not matter that a MoNC was coming, it is your job to answer questions put to you in the AtS thread, otherwise it is pointless. We all have our problems with members of the house, but as speaker you should still answer the question.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCFactor)
    After some thought, I realised that my membership on the mhoc is not enough for me to critique Rakas. I don't know what makes a good Speaker, as I have only seen 1. Therefore, I wish for my vote to be changed to Abstain, as I really have no reason to state an opinion about an issue I know nothing about.
    I'd love to change your vote but this won't actually enter division until Tuesday.

    On that note the guidance document strangely states 3-4 rather than one specific, another thing to be amended. I assume the proposers want it put up at 3 although if they wish the extra day they are welcome to message Cran before he sends it on Tuesday.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.