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%

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    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
    People make mistakes. Ultimately they don't matter as long as they get fixed, so no it doesn't change a thing. Mistakes are easily fixed and don't actually matter half as much as you're trying to make out.

    Helping the speaker is not doing their job for them, it is helping the house. While we elect a speaker to oversee the running of the house and we should all see it as our duty to help maintain and improve the house.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I would point out to those undecided or yet to vote that with 0, 3 and potentially 1 successful seat appeals, my voting reviews are among the most accurate in Mhoc history.

    I smell the fear and desperation of a man who has lost and seeks to soil the accuracy of my work. Either that or he's ignorant of voting review history (most of which have a tonne of appeals unlike mine).

    I am happy to trawl the thread tonight before voting closes to prove my point. Do not trust those who resort to smear when placing your vote.

    As to his point about doing the job for me.. The entire point of an appeal is to cross check with your own work to see if your party can achieve a high percentage.. Fez is doing his job as party leader in that regard. Perhaps as deputy, you should do the same rather than insinuate my work is not historically among the most accurate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I would point out to those undecided or yet to vote that with 0, 3 and potentially 1 successful seat appeals, my voting reviews are among the most accurate in Mhoc history.

    I smell the fear and desperation of a man who has lost and seeks to soil the accuracy of my work. Either that or he's ignorant of voting review history (most of which have a tonne of appeals unlike mine).

    I am happy to trawl the thread tonight before voting closes to prove my point. Do not trust those who resort to smear when placing your vote.

    As to his point about doing the job for me.. The entire point of an appeal is to cross check with your own work to see if your party can achieve a high percentage.. Fez is doing his job as party leader in that regard. Perhaps as deputy, you should do the same rather than insinuate my work is not historically among the most accurate.
    I can actually do my job unlike you, I knew that that’s great was about to go below 50% got him replaced and kept the seat this was after a few pm’s and now we have an active replacement, whereas yours is not accurate once again.

    You delayed it because you “Had to pop out again but i wanted to check a few votes for accuracy once i got back” and it was still wrong
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    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.)
    "That this House has no confidence in The Speaker. " Hmmm, confidence or a lack thereof is not reliant on alternatives that are disliked because they won't suck people off and will instead actually do what they are required to do.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I would point out to those undecided or yet to vote that with 0, 3 and potentially 1 successful seat appeals, my voting reviews are among the most accurate in Mhoc history.

    I smell the fear and desperation of a man who has lost and seeks to soil the accuracy of my work. Either that or he's ignorant of voting review history (most of which have a tonne of appeals unlike mine).

    I am happy to trawl the thread tonight before voting closes to prove my point. Do not trust those who resort to smear when placing your vote.

    As to his point about doing the job for me.. The entire point of an appeal is to cross check with your own work to see if your party can achieve a high percentage.. Fez is doing his job as party leader in that regard. Perhaps as deputy, you should do the same rather than insinuate my work is not historically among the most accurate.
    Except the error you are alleged to have made was not made yesterday, it was made by Cran two months ago, with you having looked yourself a few weeks ago, which was not corrected. Can you really say your reviews are super accurate when you're carrying errors from months ago?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    People make mistakes. Ultimately they don't matter as long as they get fixed, so no it doesn't change a thing. Mistakes are easily fixed and don't actually matter half as much as you're trying to make out.

    Helping the speaker is not doing their job for them, it is helping the house. While we elect a speaker to oversee the running of the house and we should all see it as our duty to help maintain and improve the house.
    See above, the thing being questioned is from three months ago, resolved three months ago, and despite this the error remained with Rakas having checked everything again 2 weeks ago after it took 10 days for Rakas to be bothered to look into what was changed in the August review after appeals.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    See above, the thing being questioned is from three months ago, resolved three months ago, and despite this the error remained with Rakas having checked everything again 2 weeks ago after it took 10 days for Rakas to be bothered to look into what was changed in the August review after appeals.
    Again, so? Mistakes get made and things get missed from time to time. I don't know if, as Rakas claims, his reviews are more accurate than the historical average or not but the level of accuracy we have seems more than acceptable to me. The house was a simpler place when I was speaker and vote reviews weren't a thing, so I can speak from experience, but a vote review would be quite a hard thing to work out without any mistakes. Different parties have different proxies on different weeks and there is a lot of cross-checking to be done. I can see how a change made to the last review would be easily missed, and it is why we have a review process in place in order to fix mistakes when they happen.

    Really this is no big deal. It is to be expected and if this house is going to throw its toys out of the plan everything the person who has voluntarily agreed to give up hours of there time so that we can enjoy the good parts of this house makes a mistake then we either need to start paying the speaker for the service they provide or just get used to the instability that constant speaker elections would bring.

    As a side point, I can't understand why anyone at all would want to be the speaker in this current house. Until we start respecting and appreciating the work of the speaker we don't deserve and will not get the best speaker we can get because anyone who is willing to put in the amount of effort required and has any sense would be dissuaded by the lack of any good points to the role. I at least had the thanks of the house for the effort I put in and Rakas deserves nothing less for the effort he has put into his role.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Again, so? Mistakes get made and things get missed from time to time. I don't know if, as Rakas claims, his reviews are more accurate than the historical average or not but the level of accuracy we have seems more than acceptable to me. The house was a simpler place when I was speaker and vote reviews weren't a thing, so I can speak from experience, but a vote review would be quite a hard thing to work out without any mistakes. Different parties have different proxies on different weeks and there is a lot of cross-checking to be done. I can see how a change made to the last review would be easily missed, and it is why we have a review process in place in order to fix mistakes when they happen.

    Really this is no big deal. It is to be expected and if this house is going to throw its toys out of the plan everything the person who has voluntarily agreed to give up hours of there time so that we can enjoy the good parts of this house makes a mistake then we either need to start paying the speaker for the service they provide or just get used to the instability that constant speaker elections would bring.

    As a side point, I can't understand why anyone at all would want to be the speaker in this current house. Until we start respecting and appreciating the work of the speaker we don't deserve and will not get the best speaker we can get because anyone who is willing to put in the amount of effort required and has any sense would be dissuaded by the lack of any good points to the role. I at least had the thanks of the house for the effort I put in and Rakas deserves nothing less for the effort he has put into his role.
    I would expect him to be able to write down the list of highlighted seats correctly and to cross off the ones which turn out aren't highlighted. I would expect him when reviewing the review which is the only reason it would take more than about a minute to pull out a list of the seats that had their highlighting overturned (but still nowhere near the 10 days it actually took to do incorrectly) to correct the error by simply reading the posts that say the seat was fine. Mistakes are expected, maintained mistakes and idleness aren't.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Amazing to think i once defended Jammy when members complained of his abrasive nature.. how times change.

    Well, we are into the final 24 hours now. A day which will define whether the House wishes me to serve in the hope of creating at least some small improvement or whether it shall release me back into the political fray free of restraint (probably an interesting thought for the likes of Joe and Nige).

    It's been an interesting few months and despite how events may unravel (thankfully i suspect that win or lose it shall be close so I've not had quite the disastrous reign some portray) i think that i'm glad i have done it. Don't get me wrong folks, being speaker is far more boring than you'll ever imagine (you get bored of rooting through the Lab/Con sub - political persuasion dependent, after about a week) and for me i think that the restraint it imposes on you is by far the most oppressive aspect. Not having an opinion on the days events, having to evaluate whether a skype leak is political rather than using it to your advantage (albeit the gossip has been good), not having random debates in the Commons Bar or talking policy in the Tory sub.. i think it's the simple things you miss most.

    There are of course positives. Being speaker has allowed me a great opportunity to evaluate my opinions of people in a manner i would have probably not been able. Some members have seen my opinion of them surge, some have revealed themselves to be duplicitous or naive, some have revealed themselves to be far more reputable than their perceived alliances would suggest. I have enjoyed certain aspects such as the routine updates bring, creating voting reviews that yield real consequences and going on dupe hunts (CT dependent but i have claimed my biggest scalp yet). Having to deal with a somewhat whiny part of the electorate, obviously not so desirable.

    Doing it all again i don't think i'd do too much different. I'd have put a bigger onus on the secondary projects but knowing what i know now i would have to conclude that i appeased members of a certain ilk too much, with no real gain. Doing it all again, i'd have come down hard and come down early. I failed to be ruthless enough in making an example of certain people when it would have mattered and for that i apologise to the whole House. I improved the situation visa vi Petros but i have not solved the problem to the degree that i know the majority want.

    If these be my final potential hours then i may as well say this..

    To the Tories i say you've been great. Quiet as a mouse, free from scandals and still nothing but nice.

    To the Liberals i say that though i still don't understand you entirely, you have some great people and are capable of great loyalty.

    To the Greens i say that your a fantastic example of how a party can shape its own destiny and it's a great shame that your lack of desire to live will shape your destiny from herein.

    To the socialists i say that your a fantastic example of how RL can both strengthen the House (via socialists being attracted to the House through Labour) but also weaken it (by de facto starving you). It will be interesting to see if you have the will to survive the trials to come.

    To the Kippers i say that as you try to forge a unique path within the Mhoc (being largely against the liberal consensus) it is a shame to see a degree of talent go to waste and a party living in fear.

    To Labour i say that your a revelation. Surprisingly efficient but riddled with beaurocracy, containing some of the House's greatest talent but also it's greatest snakes. Your a plethora of contradictions but a force to be reckoned with.

    To the Libertarians i say that stay or go my opinion of you is even more confused than the start of my tenure. You have energy, you have vibrancy but you also rigidity and a degree of self destructive tendancy.

    All in all, still a day to play for and perhaps still victory awaits me however if this is to be my final day i'm not going to spend it arguing and hence felt the need to have a good ponder.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Amazing to think i once defended Jammy when members complained of his abrasive nature.. how times change.
    Indeed, now it's your own abrasive nature you're defending.

    Also should you really be commenting on the parties while you still remain speaker, or as it is desperately trying to suck up to people at the last minute.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Indeed, now it's your own abrasive nature you're defending.

    Also should you really be commenting on the parties while you still remain speaker, or as it is desperately trying to suck up to people at the last minute.
    In fairness that was 90% intentional and historical. There's little evidence of me responding in such a manner in the last two months.

    I have made it abundantly clear that if i stay speaker it is on my own terms. If i had to be the House's *****, i'd resign. I don't consider any of those comments to breach neutrality in any significant way.
    • Offline

      18
      Seems much ado about nothing. Confidence in Rakas.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      cranbrook_aspie reveal please
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Connor27)
      cranbrook_aspie reveal please
      Polls still need unlocking rather than doing it automatically? That was a bug on the site back in 2012! Nobody has gotten round the fixing it yet?
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      The House has spoken. The Speaker remains.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      21
      ReputationRep:
      Thats tighter than i expected and leaves Rakas with a lot to do to bring doubters back on side. Im glad that this house has made the decision it has though, for the stability of the house.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      This is by no means a vote of confidence in Rakas, scaremongering and making it about Jacob has ended in this result. A meagre 21 MPs supported him with 9 abstentions and only 3 votes in it.

      This is far from over...
      • Political Ambassador
      Online

      21
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by DayneD89)
      Thats tighter than i expected and leaves Rakas with a lot to do to bring doubters back on side. Im glad that this house has made the decision it has though, for the stability of the house.
      Or alternatively it is a question of how much worse for "but Jacob" to turn those abstentions against him
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      Actually, this isn’t over yet. There have been numerous proxies appointed during the VoNC duration. cranbrook_aspie: has this been fully dupe checked yet?
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by DayneD89)
      Thats tighter than i expected and leaves Rakas with a lot to do to bring doubters back on side. Im glad that this house has made the decision it has though, for the stability of the house.
      Rakas just openly ignored neutrality as speaker yet gets your support, he is not fit for the role, what would he have to do for you to admit that?
     
     
     
    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
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. 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.

  4. 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.