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

MXX - Motion of No Confidence in the Government Watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    No need for that
    Perhaps. One could also argue there isn't any need for the petty insults and patronising comments which are just as bad and should be condemned equally.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    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.
    What other parts of the Constitution do we throw out for inconvenience? If people are too ignorant to follow the Constitution they shouldn't be bailed out by speakers who don't care what it says, they should do it right. The amendment process isn't hard either. Since the change that established a structure to moncs this is the first which has failed to do so.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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...
    Reading isn't difficult, but we already know you find it a great insult to expect your party to spend 5 minutes reading.

    Oh, and you'll find it's still incorrect and even without debate being cut a day short non binding.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What other parts of the Constitution do we throw out for inconvenience? If people are too ignorant to follow the Constitution they shouldn't be bailed out by speakers who don't care what it says, they should do it right. The amendment process isn't hard either. Since the change that established a structure to moncs this is the first which has failed to do so.
    Any part that hinders the operation of this house or that limits debate, at least in cases where ignoring the constitution makes no difference. In this example the inclusion or exclusion of the word that makes no difference and it is easy for the speaker to fix. Thus that can be done and the problem is solved. Adding an extra day for people to wait for this to go to vote after resubmission would hinder debate as the word that has no significant difference.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Do not think I made it clear. I support this motion. Aye.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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..
    An MoNC in a government that was (at points) rather less active and rather more chaotic than this one.


    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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.
    The Government took the collective and deliberate decision to trigger by-elections did it? :rolleyes: You forget that voting is an individual's responsibility and that voting reminders reminders are generally individual parties' responsibility - it's nothing to do with the government as a whole.


    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)

    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.
    It has been being planned from the start. I would know: I've spent most of the term as chief sec and have been involved in said planning. It's just that we don't share this idea on the right that all governments need to become obsessed, as soon as they get into office, with producing a budget: as long as a budget is produced at some, preferably later, point in the term, and so long as that budget has been carefully researched and scrutinised, that's fine by us. There is nothing necessarily wrong with producing a budget in the middle of the term: it's just not what we chose to do. That's our choice to make, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is.


    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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.
    You can tell what you like about the provenance of the government's output, doesn't mean you're right.

    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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.
    How funny that the proposer/seconder list, apart from hazzer, is comprised of the leaders and (ex-) DLs of the Tories and Libers then. If things were looking remotely promising, you wouldn't be doing the ***** fighting that I've seen recently in the Skype chat, and you'd be working together on topics covering more than literally the most basic thing, which is that as two opposition parties you obviously both dislike the government. Why did you not work together in the by-election, and seeing as Tory and Libertarian ideology overlaps so much, why haven't we seen, for example, a co-sponsored motion or piece of legislation?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    An MoNC in a government that was (at points) rather less active and rather more chaotic than this one.
    It was way more active than this Government. It managed to produce more bills and SoIs and pass more than this Government in total. It was a two-party coalition for most of the term, this one is a three-party coalition so one would think it would produce more but it hasn't. A Government that is active has members arguing more, therefore it's no surprise that this Government isn't "chaotic" (to use your odd term) because it's not active! Surprise surprise! :gasp:

    The Government took the collective and deliberate decision to trigger by-elections did it? :rolleyes: You forget that voting is an individual's responsibility and that voting reminders reminders are generally individual parties' responsibility - it's nothing to do with the government as a whole.
    Yeah it clearly did... I mean if you want to make suggestions like that then maybe you want to reconsider participating in this debate....

    You're forgetting that it's the responsibilities of Whips to ensure that members turn up to votes and if they don't, depose them and replace them. The fact that Government parties have triggered three by-elections in a row is a great concern for the Government and if you want to dismiss that and say it isn't then it really says loud and clear what the priorities are.

    It has been being planned from the start. I would know: I've spent most of the term as chief sec and have been involved in said planning. It's just that we don't share this idea on the right that all governments need to become obsessed, as soon as they get into office, with producing a budget: as long as a budget is produced at some, preferably later, point in the term, and so long as that budget has been carefully researched and scrutinised, that's fine by us. There is nothing necessarily wrong with producing a budget in the middle of the term: it's just not what we chose to do. That's our choice to make, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is.
    I'm sorry what? Aren't we all concerned about the economic agenda for the country, regardless of political beliefs? What a pathetic attempt to try and make it look like it's only the right who are "obsessed" with producing a Budget. It also seems you have selective memory because you don't remember seconding a MoNC in the ConLib Government which said this:

    "Over 47 days have passed since the opening of the 23rd Parliament and the Government has... failed to produce a budget so far"

    I'll tell you what. It's been 142 days and we still don't have a bloody Budget from this Government. But I guess it must be different when a right-wing party is in Government. As I said before, you're a hypocrite to say that there's no validity in that when you didn't even think twice before seconding a MoNC that used the exact same argument.

    It is your choice when to produce the Budget but it doesn't mean it will be a choice that is liked or a choice that is right. This certainly isn't liked nor right.

    You can tell what you like about the provenance of the government's output, doesn't mean you're right.
    Correct. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that the recent legislation is coming from the same member (or I should say... member) and the same party because the people (or person...) vehemently defending it are the same and the formatting is the same.

    And of course you're not going to confirm that as a member of the Government who should be defending the Government from this motion... that's your job. You will just say "it doesn't mean you're right" but we all know that means "yes you're right but I won't say you're right". I'm not stupid thanks.

    How funny that the proposer/seconder list, apart from hazzer, is comprised of the leaders and (ex-) DLs of the Tories and Libers then. If things were looking remotely promising, you wouldn't be doing the ***** fighting that I've seen recently in the Skype chat, and you'd be working together on topics covering more than literally the most basic thing, which is that as two opposition parties you obviously both dislike the government. Why did you not work together in the by-election, and seeing as Tory and Libertarian ideology overlaps so much, why haven't we seen, for example, a co-sponsored motion or piece of legislation?
    If I didn't want to work with the Libbers I would never have asked their leader Saunders16 to second it and joecphillips - who I can say right now, I personally haven't had the best of relationships with but I've put personal feelings aside and worked professionally. I would have just asked a couple more from my party to second it and someone else from UKIP - but I didn't?... Frankly, I'm struggling to understand your flawed position suggested here, that we as a party do not want to work with the Libers and vice versa.

    This fighting that you're talking about is dealt with swiftly by both Leaderships in a quick conversation. Don't see the problem here because if this was you guys your Leaderships would use the same procedure. Fighting happens, we can't always stop it but we can resolve it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I have to say, I've been quite disappointed about the government's legislation ouput this term, the amount of SOIs it has released and the amount of Minister's Questions it has held. However, I do not believe it has performed badly enough to be VoNCed and as the general election is now just a month off, there won't be sufficient time to form an alternative government anyway.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    nay
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Lol. MoNCs have lost their meaning in this place. How boring and unoriginal. :lol:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    It was way more active than this Government. It managed to produce more bills and SoIs and pass more than this Government in total. It was a two-party coalition for most of the term, this one is a three-party coalition so one would think it would produce more but it hasn't. A Government that is active has members arguing more, therefore it's no surprise that this Government isn't "chaotic" (to use your odd term) because it's not active! Surprise surprise! :gasp:



    Yeah it clearly did... I mean if you want to make suggestions like that then maybe you want to reconsider participating in this debate....

    You're forgetting that it's the responsibilities of Whips to ensure that members turn up to votes and if they don't, depose them and replace them. The fact that Government parties have triggered three by-elections in a row is a great concern for the Government and if you want to dismiss that and say it isn't then it really says loud and clear what the priorities are.



    I'm sorry what? Aren't we all concerned about the economic agenda for the country, regardless of political beliefs? What a pathetic attempt to try and make it look like it's only the right who are "obsessed" with producing a Budget. It also seems you have selective memory because you don't remember seconding a MoNC in the ConLib Government which said this:

    "Over 47 days have passed since the opening of the 23rd Parliament and the Government has... failed to produce a budget so far"

    I'll tell you what. It's been 142 days and we still don't have a bloody Budget from this Government. But I guess it must be different when a right-wing party is in Government. As I said before, you're a hypocrite to say that there's no validity in that when you didn't even think twice before seconding a MoNC that used the exact same argument.

    It is your choice when to produce the Budget but it doesn't mean it will be a choice that is liked or a choice that is right. This certainly isn't liked nor right.



    Correct. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that the recent legislation is coming from the same member (or I should say... member) and the same party because the people (or person...) vehemently defending it are the same and the formatting is the same.

    And of course you're not going to confirm that as a member of the Government who should be defending the Government from this motion... that's your job. You will just say "it doesn't mean you're right" but we all know that means "yes you're right but I won't say you're right". I'm not stupid thanks.



    If I didn't want to work with the Libbers I would never have asked their leader Saunders16 to second it and joecphillips - who I can say right now, I personally haven't had the best of relationships with but I've put personal feelings aside and worked professionally. I would have just asked a couple more from my party to second it and someone else from UKIP - but I didn't?... Frankly, I'm struggling to understand your flawed position suggested here, that we as a party do not want to work with the Libers and vice versa.

    This fighting that you're talking about is dealt with swiftly by both Leaderships in a quick conversation. Don't see the problem here because if this was you guys your Leaderships would use the same procedure. Fighting happens, we can't always stop it but we can resolve it.
    What do you mean, I thought you loved me?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Continually, the Government has shown that it is unable to use is seeming legislative mandate to implement policy. The slew of by-elections - some for the seats of senior members - that we have faced makes obvious their inactivity and incompetence.

    It's simply unacceptable. Regardless of whether it is us on these benches or those on the other in Government, the integral part of good governance is pro-activeness. None of that has been displayed by this Government.

    Even should this Motion not pass, it is an indictment of the Government that we are at this stage.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by metaphoricalworm)
    Continually, the Government has shown that it is unable to use is seeming legislative mandate to implement policy...
    And to add, if your CHANCELLOR has faced by-election, there's no adequate defence at all.

    A massive shame, and a bitter disappointment.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I have to say, I've been quite disappointed about the government's legislation ouput this term, the amount of SOIs it has released and the amount of Minister's Questions it has held. However, I do not believe it has performed badly enough to be VoNCed and as the general election is now just a month off, there won't be sufficient time to form an alternative government anyway.
    Erm what? So why was it bad enough when the Conservatives were in Government and not even halfway into the term you decide that you should propose a MoNC? I don't think you get how bad this is. I'll reiterate for you so you realise the scale of this problem.

    This Government is inactive, causing it to trigger three consecutive by-elections, no Budget (but yet you thought that only 47 days into the ConLib Government, no Budget is not acceptable), puny number of SoIs and bills (again, you thought that only 47 days in this wasn't acceptable for a different Government) and amongst those who have lost their seats are from the Cabinet, including the Chancellor. Who is supposed to be a perfect model to all of us of what an active member of Government should look like but... he's just lost his seat. Few members are making legislation, fair enough, that's normal. But it's not normal if it is always the same members and it's always from the same party.

    I think you ought to reconsider your position on this.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airmed)
    Lol. MoNCs have lost their meaning in this place. How boring and unoriginal. :lol:
    I assume you have no argument since you want to call this "boring" and "unoriginal". This Government perhaps isn't unoriginal but it's definitely boring that's for sure.

    It's always good to have another read and understand the motives for this MoNC instead of attacking it without providing a proper argument, you know?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    I assume you have no argument since you want to call this "boring" and "unoriginal". This Government perhaps isn't unoriginal but it's definitely boring that's for sure.

    It's always good to have another read and understand the motives for this MoNC instead of attacking it without providing a proper argument, you know?
    I'm not even in the Government anymore. Retirement, remember? :lol: Just saying, MoNCs seem to have lost their true meaning these days. So many of them.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airmed)
    I'm not even in the Government anymore. Retirement, remember? :lol: Just saying, MoNCs seem to have lost their true meaning these days. So many of them.
    Ah I forgot.

    This one is different because it hasn't lost its true meaning. It's just being diluted with attacks and hypocritical people saying it has no validity.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by metaphoricalworm)
    And to add, if your CHANCELLOR has faced by-election, there's no adequate defence at all.

    A massive shame, and a bitter disappointment.
    Who are you?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Who are you?
    Chancellor on Reddit MHOC. I lurk on TSR.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by metaphoricalworm)
    Chancellor on Reddit MHOC. I lurk on TSR.
    Oh right. I was just wondering. Enjoy your lurking.
 
 
 
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 10, 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?
  • 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.