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

Motion of No Confidence in the Speaker Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    I knew that, but just wanted to state my opinion for peace of mind.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    That’s the problem you only answer questions when people you like ask
    To make it clear i have never based whether i answer a question on how much i like a member although i freely admit that i have ignored one or two when they have been nothing more than a baseless attack.

    As speaker i can't reply to some attacks because the answer i would give would either be pointless or it would breach neutrality. Silence at times is the lesser evil.

    Until you've been speaker, you'll never know how restraining it is for somebody direct and opinionated. Indeed i can tell you that i don't do this for fun, i do it for the good of the House.

    I won't please everybody and perhaps this will cement a vote against me but if i know the question is pointless or simply an attack then in the absence of being able to say what i really want, i chose silence.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I object to claims that I am the main proposed of this MoNC, that it is a power grab, and that I am trying to screw the Speaker. If Wilhuff Tarkin spent the time reading off-site communications that he spends copying CoffeeGeek's responses he would know members had been promising to write MoNCs from August; I was the member who took did it to end the daily calls off-site for an MoNC in the Speaker. And if I wanted to screw the Speaker I would had kept the information of the Libertarian Party's planned hostile takeover of the Green Party secret. When the takeover happened Rakas21 would have needed to intervene to stop the takeover which would cause the Libertarians to act against him, or do nothing but have the rest of the MHoC act against him when it would have been revealed that the Speaker knew what was happening. Not taking the open goal when I had it shows this MoNC is not for personal reasons, it is for professional reasons which is Rakas' failings as Speaker.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    I object to claims that I am the main proposed of this MoNC, that it is a power grab, and that I am trying to screw the Speaker. If Wilhuff Tarkin spent the time reading off-site communications that he spends copying CoffeeGeek's responses he would know members had been promising to write MoNCs from August; I was the member who took did it to end the daily calls off-site for an MoNC in the Speaker. And if I wanted to screw the Speaker I would had kept the information of the Libertarian Party's planned hostile takeover of the Green Party secret. When the takeover happened Rakas21 would have needed to intervene to stop the takeover which would cause the Libertarians to act against him, or do nothing but have the rest of the MHoC act against him when it would have been revealed that the Speaker knew what was happening. Not taking the open goal when I had it shows this MoNC is not for personal reasons, it is for professional reasons which is Rakas' failings as Speaker.
    You must agree with the points that you wrote. I am sorry but if you write the motion, that makes you the main proposer in my eyes. You didn't have to write the motion. You could've let the empty threats of motions of no confidence in the Speaker carry on. It's why I find it extremely hard to believe that it's not a power grab. Since I know for a fact that if this motion passes, you'll want the chair again and you have neither the disposition nor the trust of the House to carry out that job effectively.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Which is why when I was doing research some time back there were votes that had been closed for the best part of a week without any declaration having been made?

    I also find the "I have a job" defence a very poor one. You were employed when you took on the position, were you not, so will have known then you don't have the time to be speaker and yet not only did you go for the role but you promised lots of things that have not come to bear fruit, I guess because you don't even have the time for the basics.

    Was it last week that you had a week off or the week before? Where are the amendments given you were supposed to be writing those in your time off?

    If your excuse for being too busy getting pissed to be speaker is that you have a job and thus don't have time to be speaker should you not resign?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    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
    It really strikes me that some people's sole defence of Rakas is "but Jacob...."
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It really strikes me that some people's sole defence of Rakas is "but Jacob...."
    I'm not defending rakas one bit. but I also don't know who would take over. if someone stated here that they would stand and be a viable alternative then I would vote aye.
    as it Is I'm abstaining
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'm not defending rakas one bit. but I also don't know who would take over. if someone stated here that they would stand and be a viable alternative then I would vote aye.
    as it Is I'm abstaining
    We can be fairly confident Jacob is standing therefore we have ourselves a viable alternative, not ideal but we can at least expect questions to be answered, updates done, and the constitution followed.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    It's been a long while since I've taken a part something like this.
    Good to be back scrutinising, this is important.
    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.
    I agree with the decision to keep the greens. The party may well have fallen beyond reach otherwise. "affected the electoral makeup of the house" is a party-specific positive or negative depending on where you sit. It doesn't affect the healthiness of this house and this forum, which is the primary concern of the speaker.

    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.
    Lazy is subjective. And he's not lazy to me. Responding to things might perhaps be something to look to expand to the deputy speakership too.:dontknow:Rakas21, ask the speaker could change to ask the speakership? Just a suggestion.

    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.
    I support that decision if it is in the interests of the house itself to have things timed a certain way. I've made similar decisions elsewhere on the site myself.
    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.
    He's not the first and won't be the last to fail on promises.
    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.
    In any dialogue, one person is never solely to blame.

    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.
    Off-site activity is the blame of those who are active off-site. If you don't like the fact that debates are happening off-site, stick with TSR. Duh.:lolwut:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    No hard feelings to most of you.
    :rofl:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    nay. i recognise the hard work and hours and dedication it takes to be speaker, Rakas21 deserves some respect.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, I was not surprised to see Obiejess was the submitter. She seems to have it in for many members such as Emily (although I can't remember the full username). Whilst Emily's actions were very uncalled for, the matter was resolved way before the vote for Deputy leader of the Labour party, where Obiejess blatantly used this past action, despite being resolved, in a bid to destroy her reputation.

    I won't be surprised if a VoNC is called against her at some point.

    Which is why I will be voting Nay, instead of Abstain when the voting opens. People should not be instantly deposed just because of a few minor infractions. GO RAKAS!!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    To be honest, I was not surprised to see Obiejess was the submitter. She seems to have it in for many members such as Emily (although I can't remember the full username). Whilst Emily's actions were very uncalled for, the matter was resolved way before the vote for Deputy leader of the Labour party, where Obiejess blatantly used this past action, despite being resolved, in a bid to destroy her reputation.

    I won't be surprised if a VoNC is called against her at some point.

    Which is why I will be voting Nay, instead of Abstain when the voting opens. People should not be instantly deposed just because of a few minor infractions. GO RAKAS!!!
    Emily made death threats against her and was a dupe of a previously banned member. Jess does not launch personal attacks, far from it.

    I'm going to say that I think this MoNC is justified, but I've set out my reasons above.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    To be honest, I was not surprised to see Obiejess was the submitter. She seems to have it in for many members such as Emily (although I can't remember the full username). Whilst Emily's actions were very uncalled for, the matter was resolved way before the vote for Deputy leader of the Labour party, where Obiejess blatantly used this past action, despite being resolved, in a bid to destroy her reputation.

    I won't be surprised if a VoNC is called against her at some point.

    Which is why I will be voting Nay, instead of Abstain when the voting opens. People should not be instantly deposed just because of a few minor infractions. GO RAKAS!!!
    As well as the death threats ‘emily’ had stalked members.

    Do you think that a speaker should try to cause confrontation, which rakas has admitted to trying to do?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    As well as the death threats ‘emily’ had stalked members.

    Do you think that a speaker should try to cause confrontation, which rakas has admitted to trying to do?
    Whilst I was unaware of the stalking, to my knowledge she made a statement about the state of her mental health, which although I’m not condoning her actions, have been given an understandable explanation.

    In terms of your second point, there are some cases where confrontation should be used, to which I’m happy to give examples should you do wish.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    To be honest, I was not surprised to see Obiejess was the submitter. She seems to have it in for many members such as Emily (although I can't remember the full username). Whilst Emily's actions were very uncalled for, the matter was resolved way before the vote for Deputy leader of the Labour party, where Obiejess blatantly used this past action, despite being resolved, in a bid to destroy her reputation.

    I won't be surprised if a VoNC is called against her at some point.

    Which is why I will be voting Nay, instead of Abstain when the voting opens. People should not be instantly deposed just because of a few minor infractions. GO RAKAS!!!
    To reject a motion of no confidence due to the proposer is not a great reason. I am no fan of the proposer and have never pretended to be, but the arguments made in this motion are clear and stand up to scrutiny. I would urge you to think again about why you are deciding to vote against this motion.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Emily made death threats against her and was a dupe of a previously banned member. Jess does not launch personal attacks, far from it.
    Debatable.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    Whilst I was unaware of the stalking, to my knowledge she made a statement about the state of her mental health, which although I’m not condoning her actions, have been given an understandable explanation.

    In terms of your second point, there are some cases where confrontation should be used, to which I’m happy to give examples should you do wish.
    Please do.

    Also why do you think the speaker should just answer questions from the people he likes when his job is to answer questions from the house? I would say refusing to do the job isn’t minor.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    To reject a motion of no confidence due to the proposer is not a great reason. I am no fan of the proposer and have never pretended to be, but the arguments made in this motion are clear and stand up to scrutiny. I would urge you to think again about why you are deciding to vote against this motion.
    I feel you may have misinterpreted. Granted, I am not a fan of the submitter, however I am not voting nay because of that. I am voting nay because he is human, and even humans make mistakes. If we deposed every single person who made a mistake the MHoC would be pretty empty.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Please do.

    Also why do you think the speaker should just answer questions from the people he likes when his job is to answer questions from the house? I would say refusing to do the job isn’t minor.
    Could you please link me to where he did refuse to do so?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    Could you please link me to where he did refuse to do so?
    He openly admits it for one in post 57 and 62 of this thread, he claims they were all attacks but even former well liked speakers disagree with that.

    Can you explain why you are supporting this without using a personal dislike of Jess as the reason? What has he done right? If that is the reason it backs up a point I made about the house/labour earlier this term voting based on names and not what the bill does which is a big problem

    Refusing to do the job is a failure to do the job not a human mistake.
 
 
 
  • 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.