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

VMXX - Motion of No Confidence in the Speaker Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this motion pass?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye:
    17
    36.96%
    On the contrary, No:
    20
    43.48%
    Abstain
    9
    19.57%

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Motion of No Confidence in the Speaker
    Proposer: Rt Hon Obiejess MP (LAB)
    Seconders: Rt Hon PetrosAC MP (LIB), Rt Hon TheDefiniteArticle MP (LAB), Rt Hon SoggyCabbages MP (LAB), Rt Hon Conceited MP (LIB)

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

    Reason One

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

    Reason Two

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

    Reason Three

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

    Reason Four

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

    Reason Five

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

    Reason Six

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

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

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

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

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No way.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The time is now - don’t let the stuck in the mud Tory old guard continue bringing the MHOC to its slow and painful death.

    Dare to dream of a better MHOC - Rakas Out.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay majorly to this.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    My opposition statement/answers to the MoNC.








    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.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    “secondly because at one point i was trying to provoke a direct confrontation with Nige and Joe.” Rakas’ own words

    Doesn’t sound like the actions of someone who should be fit to be speaker.

    Rakas claims that my “attack’s” have stopped what he means by that is I no longer ask questions in AtS because they will just be ignored, it is not a situation that should be happening, I should be able to ask questions and get the answer from the speaker as that is a major part of his job.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No, I don't support this motion. We've had much worse Speakers and at least some of the criticism is hypocritical and unfair. There aren't even better alternatives at this point…
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    No, I don't support this motion. We've had much worse Speakers and at least some of the criticism is hypocritical and unfair. There aren't even better alternatives at this point…
    Jacob is the benchmark and he is a better alternative, he would at least get things done on time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    No, I don't support this motion. We've had much worse Speakers and at least some of the criticism is hypocritical and unfair. There aren't even better alternatives at this point…
    I didn't realise that this was a vote of confidence in some certain other people, I guess I read the wrong motion.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    No, I don't support this motion. We've had much worse Speakers and at least some of the criticism is hypocritical and unfair. There aren't even better alternatives at this point…
    Worse in terms of competence, possibly, but have there ever been Speakers who deliberately take a confrontational approach to other members and discriminate against members based on reputation as a result? This is highly inappropriate conduct for a neutral arbiter of justice and the constitution.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    “secondly because at one point i was trying to provoke a direct confrontation with Nige and Joe.” Rakas’ own words

    Doesn’t sound like the actions of someone who should be fit to be speaker.

    Rakas claims that my “attack’s” have stopped what he means by that is I no longer ask questions in AtS because they will just be ignored, it is not a situation that should be happening, I should be able to ask questions and get the answer from the speaker as that is a major part of his job.
    I think you forget that i was elected on a platform to bring a degree of order to the House and that it was a small group whom members felt were being allowed to run rampant (the way Connor used to speak to Petros for example was plainly disrespectful) whom i attempted to tackle. Early on I had enough evidence on you to weaken your standing the House and you had chosen to treat me as you had past speakers, hence there was a point when a direct confrontation may have put you down for a while.

    Over time i came to the conclusion that you were a supporting figure and also over time me and Nige became more civil and Connor attempted to reform his attitude, hence the need went away.

    It was to some degree the wrong approach because it arguably inflicted some damage on myself but at the same time you guys came into the term expecting me to be a herbivore when i plainly am not. I doubt that had i appeased you and capitulated that we would have had two months or so of you guys actually being model Mhoc citizens so in that respect i don't regret my actions even if they were perhaps overly aggressive.

    Both sides must want peace, in effect you gave me few options but to treat you as you did me.

    ...

    Half of what you used to ask were not questions, they were snide comments.
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Its with a heavy heart I will be voting for this motion tonight.

    This is not a motion on Jacob, but on the ability of Rakas to do his job as speaker, and I simply do not believe he has lived up to what is expected of the speaker.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Worse in terms of competence, possibly, but have there ever been Speakers who deliberately take a confrontational approach to other members and discriminate against members based on reputation as a result? This is highly inappropriate conduct for a neutral arbiter of justice and the constitution.
    That approach stopped about two months ago which is when you should have attacked. It continues to puzzle me as to why you guys chose now rather than the VoC (bar a desperate attempt to give Nige a month to impress of course).
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I didn't realise that this was a vote of confidence in some certain other people, I guess I read the wrong motion.
    Whilst not a vote of confidence in any individual, we would need to replace Rakas should this pass and it's therefore reasonable for potential replacements to be considered when coming to a decision.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    My abstention remains so. I'm relatively new, so since Rakas was my first speaker, I don't really know what a good speaker is.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I have voted nay to this. While I may have supported it a month or two ago, I believe that rakas has improved as a speaker and should be allowed to continue.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I didn't realise that this was a vote of confidence in some certain other people, I guess I read the wrong motion.
    Awww, then perhaps it's time to take some classes on reading or better yet critical thinking.

    (I hope we both realise why the potential alternatives matter when deciding whether to support a motion of no confidence and you're just being your usual self.)
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. I've played out my reasons earlier and nothing I have read in these debates has moved my opinion.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Another reason to vote no is the constant mistakes in the voting review, rakas is expecting us to do his job for him rather than ensuring he is doing it right
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Nay. I've played out my reasons earlier and nothing I have read in these debates has moved my opinion.
    Is this the same even with rakas’ latest mistake in trying to incorrectly trying to remove your seat?

    He has made a few mistakes which if it was not for people doing his job for him would have cost people seats incorrectly
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 15, 2017
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.