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
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    18 MPs voting for this motion is certainly something to worry about for Rakas. I am delighted that this motion didn't pass though - but Rakas will have to work hard to make sure he gets more confidence of MPs.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    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?
    Almost certainly not. It's up to the Deputy Speaker whether he feels it is close enough to require checking.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Or alternatively it is a question of how much worse for "but Jacob" to turn those abstentions against him
    True, it will be a lot easier for Rakas to loose support than to gain it at this point. If Rakas shows that my support for his speakership was ill placed then I certainly see no reason why Jacob shouldnt be the next speaker personally. I cant think of anyone else i would prefer who would be willing to take the job at least.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    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?
    Perhaps it is because i was not around for the start of his speakership. I can only go by what i have seen over the ĺast few months. Over that time there have been a couple of issues where i have dissagreed with the way Rakas dealth with them, or the decisions he has made. I have also seen him adjust his position around the desires if the house. I see in that a speaker who is putting the interests of the house first. I have seen regular updates and while there have been a couple of mistakes made nothing has been major or unusual for most speakers.

    Put simply i havent seen any major issues with this speakership that Rakas isnt taking steps to improve already. I also havent seen a candidate that the house can agree on and that wants the job. Given the recent number of speakers that this house has seen i would choose stability with a speaker i have a few minor concern about over the uncertainty of throwing it all to chance again.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Because of the closeness of the result, I will be asking the CT for a voter list on this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Perhaps it is because i was not around for the start of his speakership. I can only go by what i have seen over the ĺast few months. Over that time there have been a couple of issues where i have dissagreed with the way Rakas dealth with them, or the decisions he has made. I have also seen him adjust his position around the desires if the house. I see in that a speaker who is putting the interests of the house first. I have seen regular updates and while there have been a couple of mistakes made nothing has been major or unusual for most speakers.

    Put simply i havent seen any major issues with this speakership that Rakas isnt taking steps to improve already. I also havent seen a candidate that the house can agree on and that wants the job. Given the recent number of speakers that this house has seen i would choose stability with a speaker i have a few minor concern about over the uncertainty of throwing it all to chance again.
    So a speaker breaking neutrality and trying to cause problems in the house equals only minor concerns? If that is so then surely Jacob can do better
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks folks.

    I am naturally unhappy at an 11% drop in support since my election those many moons ago but i shall do what i can to show the House that it made the right decision in backing me. It will certainly make for a tough VOC at the start of next term.

    (Original post by DayneD89)
    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?
    You have to tick a box to make it show but only people with powers can actually get to the menu to tick the box when the poll is hidden.

    A lot of features don't work because of all the updates over the years (hence why you can't see the user list for a party anymore for example).

    (Original post by Connor27)
    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...
    Jacob made it about himself when he decided to enable and push this MoNC rather than wait for the MOC at which point were i him, i'd have got a dozen or supporters to go to the speaker and say that they'd no longer support me. I'd have not been agrieved because he'd been co-operative for the remainder of the term, he'd have had longer to impress members who had doubts about him and by then i may have seen through a large part of what i wanted to do.

    Out of interest you've never actually told me what it is you want me removed for (beyond support for Jacob). What is it? Perhaps we can forge a new path to peace.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Or alternatively it is a question of how much worse for "but Jacob" to turn those abstentions against him
    Possibly. My observation though was those who had genuine administrative reasons like yourself (i.e. current) were most likely to give me the benefit of the doubt while those that were avidly against me tended to be those that were annoyed at my historical treatment of some members. I would hope over time that if i can improve my performance, that reasoning will be less persuasive come the MOC.

    Who knows. We've been at peace before, perhaps we can be again.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Thanks folks.

    I am naturally unhappy at an 11% drop in support since my election those many moons ago but i shall do what i can to show the House that it made the right decision in backing me. It will certainly make for a tough VOC at the start of next term.



    You have to tick a box to make it show but only people with powers can actually get to the menu to tick the box when the poll is hidden.

    A lot of features don't work because of all the updates over the years (hence why you can't see the user list for a party anymore for example).



    Jacob made it about himself when he decided to enable and push this MoNC rather than wait for the MOC at which point were i him, i'd have got a dozen or supporters to go to the speaker and say that they'd no longer support me. I'd have not been agrieved because he'd been co-operative for the remainder of the term, he'd have had longer to impress members who had doubts about him and by then i may have seen through a large part of what i wanted to do.

    Out of interest you've never actually told me what it is you want me removed for (beyond support for Jacob). What is it? Perhaps we can forge a new path to peace.



    Possibly. My observation though was those who had genuine administrative reasons like yourself (i.e. current) were most likely to give me the benefit of the doubt while those that were avidly against me tended to be those that were annoyed at my historical treatment of some members. I would hope over time that if i can improve my performance, that reasoning will be less persuasive come the MOC.

    Who knows. We've been at peace before, perhaps we can be again.
    I feel that your decision to extend aspie’s original ban for Flekygate by a month was made out of nothing but personal animosity (not disagreeing with the ban itself, just your extension to Cran’s original judgement..) You have reaffirmed this level of partisan bias throughout the term and especially during this VoNC.

    Also a matter of competence - I simply feel Jacob could dedicate more time and has more knowledge of the constitution and guidance document to fulfil the role. He would also be less authoritarian in his approach.

    Regardless, this is not over yet. There have been 4 Labour proxies appointed in the last 4 days, this is enough to swing the vote if double votes are incredibly favourable to us, don’t count your chickens just yet, it could become very embarrassing for you.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So a speaker breaking neutrality and trying to cause problems in the house equals only minor concerns? If that is so then surely Jacob can do better
    I wasnt around the house at the time he claims to have been actively antagonistic. I cant really vote based on that as i dont know the state of the house at the time. I havent seen anything that breaks the speakers nutrality.

    I certainly dont see a problem with Jacob being speaker. Hes never given me reason to doubt he would be a good speaker. Some in the house do seem ro see an issue there which would create a lot of uncertainty though. Either they could be right and Jacob could be a bad speaker, or an anti-jacob candidate could be gastily thrown together resulting in someone whoes only quality for the office is not being Jacob could become speaker. Given the minor problems ive witnessed with Rakas' speakership the risk just isnt worth it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    I wasnt around the house at the time he claims to have been actively antagonistic. I cant really vote based on that as i dont know the state of the house at the time. I havent seen anything that breaks the speakers nutrality.

    I certainly dont see a problem with Jacob being speaker. Hes never given me reason to doubt he would be a good speaker. Some in the house do seem ro see an issue there which would create a lot of uncertainty though. Either they could be right and Jacob could be a bad speaker, or an anti-jacob candidate could be gastily thrown together resulting in someone whoes only quality for the office is not being Jacob could become speaker. Given the minor problems ive witnessed with Rakas' speakership the risk just isnt worth it.
    Now answer this what would he have to do for you to admit that he is not the right man?

    Obviously neutrality is valued by you and openly admitting trying to cause problems in the house doesn’t matter so what does?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    has more knowledge of the constitution and guidance document to fulfil the role.
    I do not see the merits of this argument. I, and anyone else for that matter, could have just as much knowledge by simply opening new tabs with those pages and subsequently applying. We're all masters of the GD and constitution.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I do not see the merits of this argument. I, and anyone else for that matter, could have just as much knowledge by simply opening new tabs with those pages and subsequently applying. We're all masters of the GD and constitution.
    Yet petros still ****ed it up
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Now answer this what would he have to do for you to admit that?

    Obviously neutrality is valued by you and openly admitting trying to cause problems in the house doesn’t matter so what does?
    If he was openly trying to cause problems now. Alternatively perhaps trying to cause problems in the past where i was a witness. This matters because then i am able to judge those acts myself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Good, but I'm surprised to see 9 abstentions. Is it that difficult to form an opinion on a matter as important as this? Or do we have at least 9 voting robots who aren't familiar even with the Speaker and his performance among us (in which case it's indeed fairer to abstain)?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I feel that your decision to extend aspie’s original ban for Flekygate by a month was made out of nothing but personal animosity (not disagreeing with the ban itself, just your extension to Cran’s original judgement..) You have reaffirmed this level of partisan bias throughout the term and especially during this VoNC.

    Also a matter of competence - I simply feel Jacob could dedicate more time and has more knowledge of the constitution and guidance document to fulfil the role. He would also be less authoritarian in his approach.

    Regardless, this is not over yet. There have been 4 Labour proxies appointed in the last 4 days, this is enough to swing the vote if double votes are incredibly favourable to us, don’t count your chickens just yet, it could become very embarrassing for you.
    I actually liked Fleky. The essential reason the ban had to be extended was to illustrate the severity of the crime relative to your own. I also feel that three months was more appropriate and i recommend it going forward. Believe it or not but i never disliked the Libertarians as much as you think, why do you think i was chosen to conduct preliminary negotiations before the election.

    It's interesting that you'd consider him less authoritarian, my experience over the years gives me no reason to think that. If you seek a more consultative approach (members in general) then you could have suggested that (indeed i have on occasion consulted party leaders over potential amendments ect..). I'll bear that in mind though.

    Indeed. There are actually 5 changes valid during this vote (the later being the one to count if double voting has occurred - though i do intend to abolish that before terms end via an amendment).

    Mrwb replaced superhuman, the two new labour mp's were appointed, aidenj was made permanent and uniandme replaced kalail. Your best placed to know mrwb and superhuman, neb appears to have supported me, i suppose i'm hoping kalail's vote was valid and the other two appear to be newbies.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Almost certainly not. It's up to the Deputy Speaker whether he feels it is close enough to require checking.
    Regarding the need for a dupe check it's worth saying that in the division lobby you need to be in the MP usergroup to do so which limits the field of potential voters to current MP's (party leaders would have to be idiots to have never dupe checked their MP's when they joined the party) and those who have not willingly left the MP usergroup (though it's highly unlikely that they'd vote on this and not anything else since i check results before validating the result) so the potential field is quite small. Of course there's also no reason to suspect the dupes would be on my side of the line if they were the case (i have many faults, duping is not one of them).

    Double votes are of course possible though.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst the results are still uncertain I believe this will prove to be a marginal victory for Rakas - I am pleased to see the majority of the house using their common sense. It is awfully close, however, so I implore him to address people's concerns.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Now answer this what would he have to do for you to admit that he is not the right man?

    Obviously neutrality is valued by you and openly admitting trying to cause problems in the house doesn’t matter so what does?
    Let's not conflate causing problems for you with the House. Indeed i was doing what i was doing for the good of the House.

    You may not be aware of this but after seeing how you treated Petros there were a lot of members who wanted your head among others. Members may not agree with how i went about bringing you to heel (indeed in hindsight i have admitted it damaged me) but if we were to run a straw poll asking whether they wanted somebody to do it at the time (via different methods clearly) then i'd win by an emphatic majority.

    If you want to make friends in the House then i suggest that how you acted before this last week is far more conducive. Hell, Connor's turnaround was remarkable for a time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Let's not conflate causing problems for you with the House. Indeed i was doing what i was doing for the good of the House.

    You may not be aware of this but after seeing how you treated Petros there were a lot of members who wanted your head among others. Members may not agree with how i went about bringing you to heel (indeed in hindsight i have admitted it damaged me) but if we were to run a straw poll asking whether they wanted somebody to do it at the time (via different methods clearly) then i'd win by an emphatic majority.

    If you want to make friends in the House then i suggest that how you acted before this last week is far more conducive. Hell, Connor's turnaround was remarkable for a time.
    You were not behaving how a speaker is supposed to behave, this is about the way you acted not about me no matter how much you want to move the topic away from you and your actions.

    You successfully made this a referendum about others and not yourself which is lucky for you, petros himself admits he wasn’t a great speaker whereas you are a **** as well as a **** speaker
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You were not behaving how a speaker is supposed to behave, this is about the way you acted not about me no matter how much you want to move the topic away from you and your actions.

    You successfully made this a referendum about others and not yourself which is lucky for you, petros himself admits he wasn’t a great speaker whereas you are a **** as well as a **** speaker
    That's a fair claim and why i changed tack after a month or two.

    Your entitled to your opinion although i hope you see the irony in that statement in the context of my actions.
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.