Turn on thread page Beta
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Ive looked at it several times and still dont see what you are getting at :confused:
    Oh for ****s sake.

    The constitution explicitly says that in order to be binding, all MoNCs have to have the enabling clause “That this House has no confidence in X”.

    This variates from that and is therefore unconstitutional, Rakas needs to remove it and accept only an amended version in order for this to be legitimate.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Oh for ****s sake.

    The constitution explicitly says that in order to be binding, all MoNCs have to have the enabling clause “That this House has no confidence in X”.

    This variates from that and is therefore unconstitutional, Rakas needs to remove it and accept only an amended version in order for this to be legitimate.
    The missing word 'that'? I noticed that but I thought nobody was that petty or pedantic! :rofl:

    Honestly that is just ridiculous. If I had been speaker I probably would have just added the word myself. It's certainly not grounds to call for the whole thing resubmitted, it just requires the speaker to amend the OP when he gets the chance. The issue regarding seconders not supporting it is more important however and that should have been confirmed prior to submission to the house.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    The only thhing that i can spor is that it misses the word 'that' which is hardly important.
    Exactly, you could say it's unimportant if you want but that is irrelevant given the constitutions states that it must be of the form "That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government." and this is not, it is of the form "This house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government..."
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Exactly, you could say it's unimportant if you want but that is irrelevant given the constitutions states that it must be of the form "That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government." and this is not, it is of the form "This house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government..."
    See my points above. All that requires is Rakas to amend the OP when he gets a chance. Dont be so petty and pedantic. I as much more worried about this being submitted without the confirmed consent of all seconders tbh.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Exactly, you could say it's unimportant if you want but that is irrelevant given the constitutions states that it must be of the form "That this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government." and this is not, it is of the form "This house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government..."
    We have more than one constitution?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    See my points above. All that requires is Rakas to amend the OP when he gets a chance. Dont be so petty and pedantic. I as much more worried about this being submitted without the confirmed consent of all seconders tbh.
    The OP being amended does not change the fact that the motion submitted is non binding, unless we're getting an extra day out of it in which case it is merely saving creating a new thread and the reposing of memes which would arguably also require revalidation of seconders, not that they were validated in the first place. What I think you mean is somebody needs to amend the Constitution.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    We have more than one constitution?
    Typo, presumably relating to the s on states.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The OP being amended does not change the fact that the motion submitted is non binding, unless we're getting an extra day out of it in which case it is merely saving creating a new thread and the reposing of memes which would arguably also require revalidation of seconders, not that they were validated in the first place. What I think you mean is somebody needs to amend the Constitution.
    Ideally it would have been posted correctly. As it is I dont think this needs an extra day to debate the values and merits of the inclusion of the word 'that'. A change to the OP will surfice imo.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Pay attention to every word and piece of punctuation rather than just the ones you expect to be there then.
    Oh dear, it's missing one word. Horror! This is one of the most childish and most insignificant qualm raised.

    Rakas21 can you add "that" at the start please...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    It would also collapse within a week after one party accused the other of lying or being too demanding or something and threw all its toys out of the pram.
    Let's not talk too soon before your party gets accused of not getting its hands dirty in the coalition. Perhaps they've already been accused of that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Let's not talk too soon before your party gets accused of not getting its hands dirty in the coalition. Perhaps they've already been accused of that.
    I have no idea what you're talking about right now lol
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    How bloody ironic. This is a member who seconded a MoNC in a Conservative-led Government, led by the Rt Hon Life_peer and is here arguing that some points that are similar to the MoNC he himself seconded have no validity. Hypocrite. Even more of a reason to vote for this motion.

    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    1. Oh no, we chose to do things slightly differently from some previous governments with no impact on output, policy or relations between the government parties, boo hoo.
    Yeah, during the time it was renegotiated we saw almost nothing from the Government. No impact right?

    2. I'll admit that this point is partially valid, but firstly the whole House is having a period of lowered activity at the moment, and secondly by-elections are triggered by individuals forgetting to vote: if you're going to judge the entire government on the fact that two of its members (and yes, that includes me, I personally failed to have a system in place whereby I actually remembered to vote, I hold my hands up to that) have lost their seats, then I can only question why those two people are a better indicator of the government's competence than the ten who have not lost their seats.
    That's not the only way individuals do not turn up to vote. Some can't be bothered to do a simple task, ever considered that? We're not judging the Government on two members, we're judging the Government for triggering three consecutive by-elections. If the Government can't get their act sorted from the first by-election then yes that does suggest to me a lack of rigour and therefore incompetence. How can you let by-elections occur three times one after the other including members of the cabinet is honestly beyond me. Don't see how this point is "partially" valid either, it's totally valid.

    3. Firstly, what would the proposer and seconders rather: a budget that was rushed out early in the term without proper scrutiny in hopes of avoiding an MoNC, or a budget that has spent the term being worked on, researched, analysed, costed and checked over like the one that is now approaching completion? Secondly, all I'll say about our legislative output is that while it isn't the highest by any degree, a) what we have put out has been quality stuff, and b) it's certainly not the lowest the House has seen and is higher than some governments I remember involving the Conservatives, who have clearly been the main driving force behind this MoNC.
    Don't try and use that to see that those are the only two options for this Government. The Budget could have been planned right from the start and released in the middle of the term, doesn't have to be right at the end or right at the start.

    4 and 5 I won't deign to address because neither are anything like valid reasons why any government should be VoNCed except in extreme scenarios, and if the proposer and seconders think this scenario is extreme then they would do well to spend an hour or two reading the wiki.
    The Government wasn't elected to do nothing, it was elected to bring change and so far it's been limited in being able to do that due to the inactivity that has stifled it for months. And it isn't really that hard to tell that the output is coming from a few members in the Liberals and some motions that give ideas for the Government to do something.

    All in all, this MoNC is a lacklustre potshot that reeks of only having been written because CG wanted something to try and patch things up between the Tories and Libers, which anyone privy to off-site comms can clearly see that it hasn't succeeded in doing. I'm confident that the level-headed majority of the House, including the many people on the right who know that MoNCs are for when the government genuinely has no prospect of ever being able to govern, will vote this down. Nay.
    So the reason for me doing this VoNC is to try and get all loved up with the Libers? Is that the best you can come up with because that's an absolute pile of crap. I've been thinking about this VoNC for roughly a month now and the situation with the Libers didn't influence my decision at all. You don't really have access to private conversations and if you did then you would realise that actually things are improving and things are looking promising.

    This Government is generally quite lacklustre and is lacking energy and motivation to govern. I know that many people on the right and perhaps on the other side of the House will agree when I say that these problems the Government is facing can't be solved with just a quick chat. 3 by-elections have been triggered by the Government, we still have no Budget and only now the Government has decided to be more open about it (even though many, including myself have asked when this Budget is coming and we've got the same answer). Yet people like yourself considered motions like this when it wasn't even halfway into the term and there was no Budget. Don't be ridiculous.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Perhaps I've missed it but I believe we're still missing a ‘high standard’ budget from you. Another term is about to end but there doesn't seem to be anything so far.
    The Budget is to be released shortly, I would hope. We are currently voting on a version.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The Budget is to be released shortly, I would hope. We are currently voting on a version.
    So basically never?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Greetings folks.. To deal with the two issues raised in this thread.

    1) Seconders - As MoNC's are generally deemed to urgent business and the people listed have aired strong dislike of the government i had (wrongly) assumed that they would have already had given Coffee their permission. Since i'm the speaker that actually brought back checking seconding i am glad it's something you all desire and i shall be much more rigid from now on.

    I have also confirmed this afternoon that all listed do want to second although events in the wider House may require a change for division.

    2) That this House - I'll have edited that within a minute of posting this but yeah, i don't think whoever added that amendment was bothered about correct grammar in so far as the intent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    So basically never?
    I can assure you that it will be released shortly.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Greetings folks.. To deal with the two issues raised in this thread.

    1) Seconders - As MoNC's are generally deemed to urgent business and the people listed have aired strong dislike of the government i had (wrongly) assumed that they would have already had given Coffee their permission. Since i'm the speaker that actually brought back checking seconding i am glad it's something you all desire and i shall be much more rigid from now on.

    I have also confirmed this afternoon that all listed do want to second although events in the wider House may require a change for division.

    2) That this House - I'll have edited that within a minute of posting this but yeah, i don't think whoever added that amendment was bothered about correct grammar in so far as the intent.
    Its a bit rich to say that you brought back checking seconders when you have been caught not checking seconders... Still, as long as it has the required seconders theres no harm there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Its a bit rich to say that you brought back checking seconders when you have been caught not checking seconders... Still, as long as it has the required seconders theres no harm there.
    Fair point. You probably wer'nt around but for a good term or two we went through a period where seconders were not checked.. it irritated me no end. To the best of my knowledge the only items not held while checking occurred were this and the MoNC in me (though i imagine they contacted Cran).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Fair point. You probably wer'nt around but for a good term or two we went through a period where seconders were not checked.. it irritated me no end. To the best of my knowledge the only items not held while checking occurred were this and the MoNC in me (though i imagine they contacted Cran).
    They didn't contact me but I didn't need it because I'd known for a fact beforehand that every one of them wanted to second an MoNC.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Don't think you can speak when you couldn't be arsed to turn up to a vote, causing the socialists to lose a seat. And now you've run off to Labour. Never thought I should say this but perhaps you owe an apology to your Socialist friends for messing it up for them?
    No need for that
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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 9, 2017
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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.