Turn on thread page Beta

Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    So the Labour-Libertarian plans are back on? 2 parties who have lost seats and have limited activity...

    A government in waiting? More like dangerous shambles in waiting.
    Well if they are it's the first I've heard about them...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    Not being a pretentious douche offsite doesn’t mean that I’m childish. Offsite communications should remain offsite.

    I believe that it would be better for everyone if such a useless and immature government was removed, and so my vote will not change. Good luck convincing the rest of the opposition.
    I'm not bringing it onsite - however, you are by mentioning how you behave on offsite communications and in fact named the application...

    You say useless, I don't see how it's useless. And immature? Only a few government members have responded to this motion (more to come since it's only just come up), some may have insulted others including myself which I have later apologised for... makes no sense being so rigid but your choice I guess!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LPK)
    I can't really see any clear reason why I should vote aye on this, even if it would benefit the party I am in. I'm not a huge fan of needless opportunism and I would consider myself a hypocrite if I started behaving in such a way now, even if the behaviour of certain members isn't exactly helping their cause to avoid a successful no confidence vote.
    Do you have confidence in this Government to do a good job for the country?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Do you have confidence in this Government to do a good job for the country?
    Well, I have voted in favour of the last 4 Government bills, as have a clear majority of MP's from across a range of parties, so I wouldn't exactly describe it as carnage at this point. Additionally, I have faith in the opposition parties to vote down Government legislation which I consider bad for the country.

    All in all, it seems like a place where I can be relatively content with the status quo.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    I suppose this MoNC is another piece of evidence to support the fact you should never trust (and go into government with) the TSR Liberals.
    Personally i have enjoyed working with the Liberals this term and feel that they have matured as a party somewhat (though from what i hear personal relationships went sour as a factor last term too). Indeed i am 95% confident that were an election to result in the same outcome as the last, both parties would seek a new deal.

    (Original post by The PoliticalGuy)
    This government is a joke, let Labour govern we will do a far better job than the shambles of which is the Conservatives.
    I have no quarel with Labour but Dayne tracks activity both inside and outside the sub-forums and hence i am able to say that at least recently the Tories have been more productive than Labour in terms of output, more active in the party sub-forum (more active off-site too arguably) and more active in the Mhoc itself.

    Although the last election did not reflect it due to your respectable membership size, the right in the Mhoc has not been this dominant on most measures in several terms.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    A few words for my liberal, Tory and National Conservative friends who may be thinking that it is a good idea to abstain or vote against the Government on this motion.

    This Government is not perfect, no Government is. It requires compromise, it requires all sides to listen to each other. Nobody can deny at the beginning we had problems which, I believe, have now been ironed out. If the Government were to collapse, there is no guarantee that any Government could form, let alone a Government of the right. It is plausible to think that, as per the rumours at the beginning of the term, the Libertarians may form a Government with Labour. Is this in the best interest in the country? We have an opportunity to bring some real reform to the country, in the brilliant Statement of Intents which are being built by the relevant secretaries. I urge you all to vote against this motion.
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    You say useless, I don't see how it's useless. And immature? Only a few government members have responded to this motion (more to come since it's only just come up), some may have insulted others including myself which I have later apologised for... makes no sense being so rigid but your choice I guess!
    Your government has been, objectively, useless. Of the plans outlined in the QS, you have passed one of the policies and are now trying to pass another. None of the other policies have been even touched by your members. How can we trust you to actually get close to your goals if this is the rate of progress 3 month so in?

    The fact that you’re gut reaction was to insult rather than criticise speaks volumes about your character. You could even call it... immature.
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LPK)
    Well, I have voted in favour of the last 4 Government bills, as have a clear majority of MP's from across a range of parties, so I wouldn't exactly describe it as carnage at this point. Additionally, I have faith in the opposition parties to vote down Government legislation which I consider bad for the country.

    All in all, it seems like a place where I can be relatively content with the status quo.
    You should never be content with anything that refuses to make the changes it promises. Whether or not you supported the bills, only one was mentioned in the QS, which as I stated earlier, has been left almost completely untouched.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    Your government has been, objectively, useless. Of the plans outlined in the QS, you have passed one of the policies and are now trying to pass another. None of the other policies have been even touched by your members. How can we trust you to actually get close to your goals if this is the rate of progress 3 month so in?

    The fact that you’re gut reaction was to insult rather than criticise speaks volumes about your character. You could even call it... immature.
    We've passed two policies that were mentioned in the Queen's Speech actually... It'd be unrealistic if every government entered thinking they could achieve every single aim they have laid out in 6 months - some may require a second term to achieve that. However, we intend to introduce most of what we pledged in the Queen's Speech - which is totally reasonable and a more realistic belief. We still have time to achieve the rest of our goals and in fact have some ready in the sub-forum ready to go... I can only ask that you be patient and wait for us to implement our policies. We are the only government that has released a legislative agenda and I feel that voting for this motion because we haven't achieved all of it even though the term is no where near finished, is unjustified.

    My gut reaction was to criticise and I did criticise it. This is over now so if you wish to bring it up instead of explaining why you want to vote for this awful motion then that's your choice.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    You should never be content with anything that refuses to make the changes it promises. Whether or not you supported the bills, only one was mentioned in the QS, which as I stated earlier, has been left almost completely untouched.
    Again I must correct you, we passed two bills that were mentioned in the QS. We are working on the rest - patience is sometimes useful you know.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    You should never be content with anything that refuses to make the changes it promises. Whether or not you supported the bills, only one was mentioned in the QS, which as I stated earlier, has been left almost completely untouched.
    If I remember correctly, we haven't even approached the halfway point for this parliamentary term yet, so this critique sounds like something which would have stronger merit later down the road. If it still hasn't made progress on its QS within the next couple of months then you are raising a valid point, but we can't be surprised that a Government hasn't achieved everything it set out to do if they're cut off before the halfway point of its term.
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    We've passed two policies that were mentioned in the Queen's Speech actually... It'd be unrealistic if every government entered thinking they could achieve every single aim they have laid out in 6 months - some may require a second term to achieve that. However, we intend to introduce most of what we pledged in the Queen's Speech - which is totally reasonable and a more realistic belief. We still have time to achieve the rest of our goals and in fact have some ready in the sub-forum ready to go... I can only ask that you be patient and wait for us to implement our policies. We are the only government that has released a legislative agenda and I feel that voting for this motion because we haven't achieved all of it even though the term is no where near finished, is unjustified.

    My gut reaction was to criticise and I did criticise it. This is over now so if you wish to bring it up instead of explaining why you want to vote for this awful motion then that's your choice.
    Whether or not I made a mistake, two bills in the past 3 months from the 8 or so that we’re mentioned in the QS cannot possible be seen as a good amount of legislation. Halfway through a term is not “nowhere near done”.

    You did not criticise, you insulted. Members of your own party have admittedly to that.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    Whether or not I made a mistake, two bills in the past 3 months from the 8 or so that we’re mentioned in the QS cannot possible be seen as a good amount of legislation. Halfway through a term is not “nowhere near done”.

    You did not criticise, you insulted. Members of your own party have admittedly to that.
    How can it not be seen as a good amount of legislation? We are releasing items weekly and those two were mentioned in the QS - I accept we have a way to go but you cannot possibly comment on that until the term is near completion...

    Then you clearly haven't taken some time to read my response to the motion.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    Whether or not I made a mistake, two bills in the past 3 months from the 8 or so that we’re mentioned in the QS cannot possible be seen as a good amount of legislation. Halfway through a term is not “nowhere near done”.

    You did not criticise, you insulted. Members of your own party have admittedly to that.
    Two and a half months in a few days and the rate at which we create and pass legislation is our prerogative. We've still beat most other parties.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LPK)
    If I remember correctly, we haven't even approached the halfway point for this parliamentary term yet, so this critique sounds like something which would have stronger merit later down the road. If it still hasn't made progress on its QS within the next couple of months then you are raising a valid point, but we can't be surprised that a Government hasn't achieved everything it set out to do if they're cut off before the halfway point of its term.
    You are right; we can't be surprised that the government hasn't achieved everything it intended to do. We can, however, be very surprised that they have only done two things they intended to. Those are immensely large grounds for a motion against the government before it grows larger, more powerful and ultimately is likely to continue doing very little.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    You are right; we can't be surprised that the government hasn't achieved everything it intended to do. We can, however, be very surprised that they have only done two things they intended to. Those are immensely large grounds for a motion against the government before it grows larger, more powerful and ultimately is likely to continue doing very little.
    Complains that the government is not doing enough>Complains that the government is 2 by-elections from a majority.

    Why put your most important bills in division when waiting a little all but guarantees passage.

    ........

    Also i would like to calrify for the record (because i like Vit and don't like seeing Connor drag his name through the mud) but as of now he remains a loyal member of the government and has not, i repeat has not issued a leadership challenge against the PM. Connor is unfortunately trying to deceive the House here with his imagination.

    A detailed post will be forthcoming.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    You are right; we can't be surprised that the government hasn't achieved everything it intended to do. We can, however, be very surprised that they have only done two things they intended to. Those are immensely large grounds for a motion against the government before it grows larger, more powerful and ultimately is likely to continue doing very little.
    No it isn't grounds for a motion because we're not even halfway through the term. Our Queen's Speech sets out our aims for the term, it makes sense that you give us until near the end of the term to achieve our aims before using that as a way of criticising the government. To do so now is unjustified.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    You are right; we can't be surprised that the government hasn't achieved everything it intended to do. We can, however, be very surprised that they have only done two things they intended to. Those are immensely large grounds for a motion against the government before it grows larger, more powerful and ultimately is likely to continue doing very little.
    I'm still not sure where that leaves us after the VoNC. This sounds like one of those scenarios which sounds good to those taking advantage of it, but which could easily come back to bite us in future if and when that same standard is applied to us. A simple litmus test I would use is whether I would like to be treated the same way as I am treating others, and in this instance I would be rather miffed if I was being judged over something which I still had over half a term left to achieve.

    I don't know how prepared the Government is to meet its QS, but it would be an unfortunate precedent if we applied arbitrary criteria for prematurely calling a VoNC based on x days/weeks/months of activity. After all, what would stop a future Government being VoNC'ed after only a few weeks for not publishing Y number of bills? I can't help but suspect that some people supportive of this would be outraged if they got VoNC'ed under similar circumstances. A decision like this isn't only worth doing when it is politically convenient for our respective causes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LPK)
    I'm still not sure where that leaves us after the VoNC. This sounds like one of those scenarios which sounds good to those taking advantage of it, but which could easily come back to bite us in future if and when that same standard is applied to us. A simple litmus test I would use is whether I would like to be treated the same way as I am treating others, and in this instance I would be rather miffed if I was being judged over something which I still had over half a term left to achieve.

    I don't know how prepared the Government is to meet its QS, but it would be an unfortunate precedent if we applied arbitrary criteria for prematurely calling a VoNC based on x days/weeks/months of activity. After all, what would stop a future Government being VoNC'ed after only a few weeks for not publishing Y number of bills? I can't help but suspect that some people supportive of this would be outraged if they got VoNC'ed under similar circumstances. A decision like this isn't only worth doing when it is politically convenient for our respective causes.
    Let's put it this way: after three months, would you be happy if your government passed only two parts of its agenda? I would most certainly not be proud of that indeed and instead be disgusted that we had used our time in power to do just so little. My view is that I would not be able to defend that if I was in their position, which makes their pride in their so-called achievements seem ridiculous to me. If you are going to write a Queen's Speech you should be prepared to act upon it, but instead we have seen bills outside of what was proposed and some that failed more dramatically than I have seen on my time in the game. That is grounds to me; I do not believe we should accept mediocrity.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by LPK)
    I'm still not sure where that leaves us after the VoNC. This sounds like one of those scenarios which sounds good to those taking advantage of it, but which could easily come back to bite us in future if and when that same standard is applied to us. A simple litmus test I would use is whether I would like to be treated the same way as I am treating others, and in this instance I would be rather miffed if I was being judged over something which I still had over half a term left to achieve.

    I don't know how prepared the Government is to meet its QS, but it would be an unfortunate precedent if we applied arbitrary criteria for prematurely calling a VoNC based on x days/weeks/months of activity. After all, what would stop a future Government being VoNC'ed after only a few weeks for not publishing Y number of bills? I can't help but suspect that some people supportive of this would be outraged if they got VoNC'ed under similar circumstances. A decision like this isn't only worth doing when it is politically convenient for our respective causes.
    they would be and ova
    lok at prveviuous gov mons shows clear
 
 
 
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: March 2, 2018
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.