Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Connor is attempting to weaken the coalition because if he succeeds then either the Kippers no longer have our protection and there's a greater chance they'll whither and die or the Libertarians potentially get a shot as coalition partner to somebody, in which case in about a months time we'll see the new secretary of state for waste collection announced as he rejoins the faithful.

    It's a ploy that's good for him, not especially good for the wider House though.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    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.
    I think that question is somewhat incomplete, as it can't be answered without understanding how the second half of a term is going to be used.

    The flipside to the argument is that the priorities set out by the Government have a term of 6 months to be fulfilled, and it is reasonable to expect that these be of a high standard because of the emphasis which has been placed upon them within the QS. As a result, I find it to be a reasonable explanation when the Government states that these items are still pending for the remainder of the term and will be published in the near future.

    If Governments began rushing their key pieces of legislation due to concerns of being VoNC'ed then we may end up with ill-prepared rubbish which has been drafted overnight. We could then create a narrative that they should be removed from power because of this incompetence, therefore it quickly becomes a case of damned if we do, damned if we don't.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LPK)
    I think that question is somewhat incomplete, as it can't be answered without understanding how the second half of a term is going to be used.

    The flipside to the argument is that the priorities set out by the Government have a term of 6 months to be fulfilled, and it is reasonable to expect that these be of a high standard because of the emphasis which has been placed upon them within the QS. As a result, I find it to be a reasonable explanation when the Government states that these items are still pending for the remainder of the term and will be published in the near future.

    If Governments began rushing their key pieces of legislation due to concerns of being VoNC'ed then we may end up with ill-prepared rubbish which has been drafted overnight. We could then create a narrative that they should be removed from power because of this incompetence, therefore it quickly becomes a case of damned if we do, damned if we don't.
    Let's suggest that each cabinet minister should be able to prepare two bills in a term, ignoring any that produce more or members that are not in the cabinet preparing bills. If this is the case, we should expect ten bills relevant to pledges on the Queen's Speech by this point. Even if we were to go with an exceptionally low and unrealistic estimation of one bill per term, we should expect five by this point. I would go as far to say that both of these estimations are conservative as you can get a well-detailed bill completed over the course of a few days and weeks or a free day, especially if you are experienced enough to serve in government. That should not be a challenge for an allegedly active government, yet alone a below average one, and is why I believe you are mistaken to say that the government are avoiding the mistake of rushing legislation.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    Let's suggest that each cabinet minister should be able to prepare two bills in a term, ignoring any that produce more or members that are not in the cabinet preparing bills. If this is the case, we should expect ten bills relevant to pledges on the Queen's Speech by this point. Even if we were to go with an exceptionally low and unrealistic estimation of one bill per term, we should expect five by this point. I would go as far to say that both of these estimations are conservative as you can get a well-detailed bill completed over the course of a few days and weeks or a free day, especially if you are experienced enough to serve in government. That should not be a challenge for an allegedly active government, yet alone a below average one, and is why I believe you are mistaken to say that the government are avoiding the mistake of rushing legislation.
    Your forgetting that we have released more than five bills (i recall somebody saying 8 earlier), they just have not been those in the Queens Speech.

    Should we be tied to only the Queens Speech and not seek to legislate on any other issue? What incentive is there for future governments to announce something similar.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    Let's suggest that each cabinet minister should be able to prepare two bills in a term, ignoring any that produce more or members that are not in the cabinet preparing bills. If this is the case, we should expect ten bills relevant to pledges on the Queen's Speech by this point. Even if we were to go with an exceptionally low and unrealistic estimation of one bill per term, we should expect five by this point.
    That's only if we expect there to be an equal output of priority bills during each month of the term, which isn't a requirement of a Government. If they had only published two bills during their entire time in office then that would be a persuasive case, but we have to overlook other pieces of legislation in order to create a narrative on unacceptable output rates for Government legislation. It would be nice if priority bills got released in the structured manner which you outline, but that's an idealism at best.

    The reason I am sympathetic to the need for time to draft important legislation is because I'm currently working on a bill myself, and it is something which I have spent 18 months researching just to feel knowledgeable enough to draft it for review. It would be illogical of me to spend 18 months developing necessary knowledge to reach a standard where I can draft a bill, just to then turn around and criticise individuals for not mastering key pieces of legislation after a significantly shorter period of time. Obviously, we can't expect Government members to spend this amount of time researching every important bill, but it does make it somewhat plausible for me that they might need a bit longer than has currently been given to balance everything.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Regarding Vitiate. I am happy to share with you screenshots from offsite communications to back up my claims, although obviously not on here as that’s against the TSR terms and conditions.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I should also point out (and i'm happy to trawl through and find an actual average) that most governments release ~15 bills a term (based on most governments winning the motions and bills challenge with about 30 points (the very active ones hit 40 and very active parties hit 50) so at this stage we are on track for a finish above average in pure output with a majority of bills passed and of a decent quality.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Connor is attempting to weaken the coalition because if he succeeds then either the Kippers no longer have our protection and there's a greater chance they'll whither and die or the Libertarians potentially get a shot as coalition partner to somebody, in which case in about a months time we'll see the new secretary of state for waste collection announced as he rejoins the faithful.

    It's a ploy that's good for him, not especially good for the wider House though.
    You really overestimate Connor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    You really overestimate Connor
    He's rash but he is quite intelligent and has no doubt thought of this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    He's rash but he is quite intelligent and has no doubt thought of this.
    So apparently I’m a diabolical mastermind... how do you explain myself and Saunders fighting for the same cause when we wanted to rip each other apart only two months ago?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The list of people signed under this made me laugh out loud. It's like looking at a bunch of convicted felons being offended by a parking violation. :laugh:

    Stay salty, the House needs a bit of amusement through drama every once in a while and there's currently no one even close to you in terms of comedic potential.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I do actually give an example further up Petros, LP’s rant at the Liberals following the terrorism bill withdrawal, which can be found in AtG.
    Will you be replying to the rest of my points?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In which case in about a months time we'll see the new secretary of state for waste collection announced as he rejoins the faithful.
    8.5/10 :giggle:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's nice to see regular MoNC's are still the norm in the House, it's no secret I was sick of them.

    Not going to be convinced either way if everyone resorts to fantastical claims or mud-slinging.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    So apparently I’m a diabolical mastermind... how do you explain myself and Saunders fighting for the same cause when we wanted to rip each other apart only two months ago?
    I confess that he's the only one i can't explain.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    The list of people signed under this made me laugh out loud. It's like looking at a bunch of convicted felons being offended by a parking violation. :laugh:

    Stay salty, the House needs a bit of amusement through drama every once in a while and there's currently no one even close to you in terms of comedic potential.
    You’re doing a great job appealing to swing voter MPs on this, as always.

    Keep up the good work, I won’t need to do anything myself at this rate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    It's nice to see regular MoNC's are still the norm in the House, it's no secret I was sick of them.

    Not going to be convinced either way if everyone resorts to fantastical claims or mud-slinging.
    Absolutely not fantastical claims at all, I have evidence that has been presented publicly on offsite communications, but I cannot reproduce it here because of TSR rules.

    I trust Tommy1boy (can’t tag him here for some reason) to affirm the legitimacy of my claims, he is a Government loyalist so I’m sure he will not he doubted.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Absolutely not fantastical claims at all, I have evidence that has been presented publicly on offsite communications, but I cannot reproduce it here because of TSR rules.

    I trust Tommy1boy (can’t tag him here for some reason) to affirm the legitimacy of my claims, he is a Government loyalist so I’m sure he will not he doubted.
    What would you like me to affirm?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    What would you like me to affirm?
    My claims regarding Vitiate in the motion itself.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.