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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    Could you please link me to where he did refuse to do so?
    Ask the Speaker thread 9 days ago. He does not like Jacob so decided he could not be bothered to answer a valid question.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    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.
    The fact that it is only his first term as speaker should be one reason. Having never been speaker I personally don’t know the pressures of speakership however what is clear is that a speaker should remain in neutrality, which I believe should take precedence over answering questions that have been viewed as attacks. Whether or not they actually were is another matter for another time, however surely silence was the lesser of two evils in this case.

    Secondly, I believe that although the first voting review was delayed, which I believe can be expected since he had only had the job a short while, and the job does appear very taxing (what with HANSARD and all that) he followed protocol by alerting everyone of the delay of the second voting review, which I believe has already been said is only a minor infraction.

    As for the voting purely based on names, I believe that is speculation. The only times labour have actively voted against a bill is because it did not include all of the evidence to make an informed vote. I understand that it may seem like a personal attack on you, however I would like to assure you it is not. It is purely a difference in ideologies put forth in a bill.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    Whilst I see many support this VoNC I do not see anyone offering any alternative people to take up this role. In my opinion surely there shouldn’t be alternative speakers in mind already before the VoNC takes place, rather than causing another problem
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    Whilst I see many support this VoNC I do not see anyone offering any alternative people to take up this role. In my opinion surely there shouldn’t be alternative speakers in mind already before the VoNC takes place, rather than causing another problem
    Have you actually read the thread? For the 14th time; Jacob E would be a fine choice for Speaker and is willing to run...

    Also interesting that you use inexperience as an excuse for him yet Rakas is one of the longest serving members of the MHOC and has been playing the game for years including various terms as Prime Minister - this excuse does not wash with him and shows that you clearly do not know the man you are defending; a rude; abrasive and downright incompetent Tory stooge.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I have never supported a monc in a speaker before, but I had to propose this.

    If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, I don't know what will.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    The fact that it is only his first term as speaker should be one reason. Having never been speaker I personally don’t know the pressures of speakership however what is clear is that a speaker should remain in neutrality, which I believe should take precedence over answering questions that have been viewed as attacks. Whether or not they actually were is another matter for another time, however surely silence was the lesser of two evils in this case.

    Secondly, I believe that although the first voting review was delayed, which I believe can be expected since he had only had the job a short while, and the job does appear very taxing (what with HANSARD and all that) he followed protocol by alerting everyone of the delay of the second voting review, which I believe has already been said is only a minor infraction.

    As for the voting purely based on names, I believe that is speculation. The only times labour have actively voted against a bill is because it did not include all of the evidence to make an informed vote. I understand that it may seem like a personal attack on you, however I would like to assure you it is not. It is purely a difference in ideologies put forth in a bill.
    A person who has talked about leaving the MHoC for good is not a long term solution, in his manifesto he talked about until the end of term only.

    Part of his job is to answer questions, if he can’t do that he can’t do the job.

    So important questions can be ignored because rakas doesn’t like certain members?

    So he messed up but it’s ok he told everyone the next review would be delayed.

    You were the one who used Jess as a reason to oppose this.

    It’s not a case of whether or not they were ignored, they were ignored if you haven’t seen that then you haven’t been paying attention as it has happened to me as well I asked a question which was not answered until others asked for it because it was ignored
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    Whilst I see many support this VoNC I do not see anyone offering any alternative people to take up this role. In my opinion surely there shouldn’t be alternative speakers in mind already before the VoNC takes place, rather than causing another problem
    That is very contradictory, no one is offering alternatives but no one should be offering alternatives.
    Online

    21
    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!!!
    Other than a week in September when Jammy was apparently willing to be the proposer (though the revisions were never made by him from what i could see), i have been informed she intended to propose a MoNC from about a month into my speakership. Given that she's not posted here and never actually acted though, it would appear that Nige choosing to enable this is probably more worthy of negativity in opinion.

    (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?
    In fairness i have not done so for a good six weeks. Indeed our own relations have been pretty civil.

    I have also done things you should frankly be grateful for even if you do vote to remove me.

    (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.
    While i do agree that one should not base their whole vote on personality i do think it can be a small aspect of a decision. For example, a MoNC from Ray would have far more credibility to it than one from half a dozen members for example. That's purely down to the fact that some people have a greater level of respect for some people than others based on past behavior. It's human nature and why even in a group of people who each have one vote, often you'll see that some people sway opinion more than others. Or why bodies like the UN make celebrities their ambassadors.

    If you get the chance, explore behavioural economics. It's incredibly interesting.

    (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.
    It has nothing to do with liking people, that is a spurious assertion. As you highlighted from my prior posts, there are some posts which are pointless to respond to. Indeed i replied to a question from Nige in Ask The Speaker on Sunday and he's not topping my list of people i like.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kalail)
    The fact that it is only his first term as speaker should be one reason. Having never been speaker I personally don’t know the pressures of speakership however what is clear is that a speaker should remain in neutrality, which I believe should take precedence over answering questions that have been viewed as attacks. Whether or not they actually were is another matter for another time, however surely silence was the lesser of two evils in this case.

    Secondly, I believe that although the first voting review was delayed, which I believe can be expected since he had only had the job a short while, and the job does appear very taxing (what with HANSARD and all that) he followed protocol by alerting everyone of the delay of the second voting review, which I believe has already been said is only a minor infraction.

    As for the voting purely based on names, I believe that is speculation. The only times labour have actively voted against a bill is because it did not include all of the evidence to make an informed vote. I understand that it may seem like a personal attack on you, however I would like to assure you it is not. It is purely a difference in ideologies put forth in a bill.
    He's referring to the fact that i have chosen not to answer a handful of questions because i have considered nothing more than whining or pointless to answer. I did for the record answer such questions early in the term but i was informed that telling somebody to go stick a finger up their orifice was not language suitable for the speaker.

    I should add that though it was my fault i actually took complete control of the last two voting reviews (another due this Friday) and the result is that with 0 and 3 appeals they are some of if not the most accurate in Mhoc history. I can be faulted for punctuality at times but the work i do is brilliant. As you've seen evidenced with the updates each night, i don't always meet my target deadline but they look pornographically good compared to some prior speakers, they do occur each night (not the case with all prior speakers) and 90% of the time they are faultless.

    (Original post by Kalail)
    Whilst I see many support this VoNC I do not see anyone offering any alternative people to take up this role. In my opinion surely there shouldn’t be alternative speakers in mind already before the VoNC takes place, rather than causing another problem
    A vote for this MoNC is a vote for a Nige speakership in effect. Read my reply to Connor on page 3 or 4 as to why i don't think the House should seek that.

    (Original post by Connor27)
    Have you actually read the thread? For the 14th time; Jacob E would be a fine choice for Speaker and is willing to run...

    Also interesting that you use inexperience as an excuse for him yet Rakas is one of the longest serving members of the MHOC and has been playing the game for years including various terms as Prime Minister - this excuse does not wash with him and shows that you clearly do not know the man you are defending; a rude; abrasive and downright incompetent Tory stooge.
    That is a serious claim!

    Present specific examples of when i have acted in manner favouring the Tories over any other party otherwise apologise for your fraudulent claim to the House.

    (Original post by Obiejess)
    I.
    Do you want this up tonight or the extra days's debate. The guidance document gives you the option of 3-4 days (tonight or Wednesday).

    (Original post by joecphillips)
    A person who has talked about leaving the MHoC for good is not a long term solution, in his manifesto he talked about until the end of term only.

    Part of his job is to answer questions, if he can’t do that he can’t do the job.

    So important questions can be ignored because rakas doesn’t like certain members?

    So he messed up but it’s ok he told everyone the next review would be delayed.

    You were the one who used Jess as a reason to oppose this.

    It’s not a case of whether or not they were ignored, they were ignored if you haven’t seen that then you haven’t been paying attention as it has happened to me as well I asked a question which was not answered until others asked for it because it was ignored
    Yes, i commuted for a 6 month term and said i'd evaluate the situation closer to the time. If i pass this MoNC then i will face the VoC at the start of next term and continue as speaker.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    He's referring to the fact that i have chosen not to answer a handful of questions because i have considered nothing more than whining or pointless to answer. I did for the record answer such questions early in the term but i was informed that telling somebody to go stick a finger up their orifice was not language suitable for the speaker.

    I should add that though it was my fault i actually took complete control of the last two voting reviews (another due this Friday) and the result is that with 0 and 3 appeals they are some of if not the most accurate in Mhoc history. I can be faulted for punctuality at times but the work i do is brilliant. As you've seen evidenced with the updates each night, i don't always meet my target deadline but they look pornographically good compared to some prior speakers, they do occur each night (not the case with all prior speakers) and 90% of the time they are faultless.



    A vote for this MoNC is a vote for a Nige speakership in effect. Read my reply to Connor on page 3 or 4 as to why i don't think the House should seek that.



    That is a serious claim!

    Present specific examples of when i have acted in manner favouring the Tories over any other party otherwise apologise for your fraudulent claim to the House.



    Do you want this up tonight or the extra days's debate. The guidance document gives you the option of 3-4 days (tonight or Wednesday).



    Yes, i commuted for a 6 month term and said i'd evaluate the situation closer to the time. If i pass this MoNC then i will face the VoC at the start of next term and continue as speaker.
    Firstly, giving the speaker’s award to CoffeeGeek for
    no apparent reason other than losing 5 seats in the general election, providing no credible opposition whatsoever and producing zero legislation of note in Parliament XXIV. This was a partisan decision and there were clearly better candidates for this award.

    Secondly, refusing to retrospectively punish the Tory Party despite clear evidence of collusion between Nigel and Mobbsy over the Lib Dem Party scandal, a scandal that you have otherwise compared to Flekygate but refuse to mete out the same punishment.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    First of all I wish to comend Rakas21 on the highly detailed and honest responses he has defended his speakership by.

    On the VoNC itself, I have decided to vote against this not because I support or have confidence in Rakas's speakership but because there is no one that can or wants the job of speaker and at the moment rakas is the only member that can offer stability in the mean time.

    So until there is a credible candidate to replace him I'll vote against it
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Firstly, giving the speaker’s award to CoffeeGeek for
    no apparent reason other than losing 5 seats in the general election, providing no credible opposition whatsoever and producing zero legislation of note in Parliament XXIV. This was a partisan decision and there were clearly better candidates for this award.

    Secondly, refusing to retrospectively punish the Tory Party despite clear evidence of collusion between Nigel and Mobbsy over the Lib Dem Party scandal, a scandal that you have otherwise compared to Flekygate but refuse to mete out the same punishment.
    Regarding the first, that's not even a party specific specific award and it was hardly going to go to a libertarian given your reputations at the time (one imagines Saunder's will win this term though).

    Regarding the second, i made it a policy not to override prior speakers judgement. I certainly won't allow candidates to stand in that manner but Petros did. Mobbsy did nothing illegal during my speakership and i'd point out that he did half fall on his sword for it (or i should say, it cemented the start of the new term as a natural end).

    Neither are strong examples to support your claim. Indeed you could have made a stronger claim with point one had you developed your reasoning a bit more.

    Win or lose, i doubt anybody but you will be voting against me for being a Tory stooge.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Firstly, giving the speaker’s award to CoffeeGeek for
    no apparent reason other than losing 5 seats in the general election, providing no credible opposition whatsoever and producing zero legislation of note in Parliament XXIV. This was a partisan decision and there were clearly better candidates for this award.
    We lost 4 seats and frankly, that's a pathetic reason to not give an award to someone, just because they were in leadership when the party lost seats - it becomes more than just pathetic to suggest that, even if it wasn't necessarily their fault...

    No credible opposition? I guess that's why the Budget didn't pass right?

    The notion that giving an award to a person from the party you previously belonged to is a "partisan decision" is very foolish. And it's also quite petty that I'm still hearing people moan about this, it really shows how childish some people are that they are crying about some award that doesn't really mean much. Get over it, it's the Speaker's decision anyways hence "Speaker's Award".

    Secondly, refusing to retrospectively punish the Tory Party despite clear evidence of collusion between Nigel and Mobbsy over the Lib Dem Party scandal, a scandal that you have otherwise compared to Flekygate but refuse to mete out the same punishment.

    Rakas21 wasn't even Speaker at the time that happened, it was PetrosAC - it was his decision not to punish us - even though Mobbsy and Nigel didn't actually break any rules nor did the Tory Party benefit from such arrangement.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Regarding the first, that's not even a party specific specific award and it was hardly going to go to a libertarian given your reputations at the time (one imagines Saunder's will win this term though).

    Regarding the second, i made it a policy not to override prior speakers judgement. I certainly won't allow candidates to stand in that manner but Petros did. Mobbsy did nothing illegal during my speakership and i'd point out that he did half fall on his sword for it (or i should say, it cemented the start of the new term as a natural end).

    Neither are strong examples to support your claim. Indeed you could have made a stronger claim with point one had you developed your reasoning a bit more.

    Win or lose, i doubt anybody but you will be voting against me for being a Tory stooge.
    So you gave it to your friend instead, isn’t there precedent for the speaker at the end of the term to pick even if they are out of the position?

    It’s not a reason to VoNC you for though
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    First of all I wish to comend Rakas21 on the highly detailed and honest responses he has defended his speakership by.

    On the VoNC itself, I have decided to vote against this not because I support or have confidence in Rakas's speakership but because there is no one that can or wants the job of speaker and at the moment rakas is the only member that can offer stability in the mean time.

    So until there is a credible candidate to replace him I'll vote against it
    *cough* Jacob

    I mean, does anybody honestly not expect him to go for it, and can anybody honestly say that he would be worse than Rakas?

    Sorry, forgot he isn't credible because you need him too badly in the greens.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Firstly, giving the speaker’s award to CoffeeGeek for
    no apparent reason other than losing 5 seats in the general election, providing no credible opposition whatsoever and producing zero legislation of note in Parliament XXIV. This was a partisan decision and there were clearly better candidates for this award.

    Secondly, refusing to retrospectively punish the Tory Party despite clear evidence of collusion between Nigel and Mobbsy over the Lib Dem Party scandal, a scandal that you have otherwise compared to Flekygate but refuse to mete out the same punishment.
    Better candidates almost unanimously supported in the "alternate awards" that the CT has no issue with despite being overly sexual, sexist, and outright abusive.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    *cough* Jacob

    I mean, does anybody honestly not expect him to go for it, and can anybody honestly say that he would be worse than Rakas?

    Sorry, forgot he isn't credible because you need him too badly in the greens.
    He is not viewed as a credible candidate by the vast majority of the House.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    He is not viewed as a credible candidate by the vast majority of the House.
    Hear, hear.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    He is not viewed as a credible candidate by the vast majority of the House.
    And yet this comes from a combination of personal dislike, political dislike, and the fact that he doesn't seem to be much of a fan of executive overreach from the speaker, people would prefer incompetence over somebody they dislike who they know would get the job done.

    People also seem to be forgetting that it is a MoNC in Rakas, not a MoC in Jacob, or did I read the title, motion, and constitution wrong?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm just about to make food so will be dong the update in about an hour but if Cran is not online by then i may as well send this up myself. I said i wouldn't handle my own potential removal but i can suck it up for the sake of getting it over and done with (though Cran will be the one performing vote changes).

    If anybody does want to wait a few hours until Cran is online then you've got about an hour to tell me.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    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.