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

Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    My claims regarding Vitiate in the motion itself.
    I do not claim to know what went on behind closed doors. It is up for my right honourable friend the former Chief Whip to make to comment on the matter.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommy1boy)
    I do not claim to know what went on behind closed doors. It is up for my right honourable friend the former Chief Whip to make to comment on the matter.
    You have seen my evidence though on offsite communications, will you confirm, with a yes or no answer, that everything I have mentioned in this MoNC has a basis in the evidence that you have seen?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    You have seen my evidence though on offsite communications, will you confirm, with a yes or no answer, that everything I have mentioned in this MoNC has a basis in the evidence that you have seen?
    I am happy to confirm I have seen a screenshot. I do not know whether it is legitimate or not, and you have only heard one side of the argument.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Although I’d love to bring down this government, I see no credible alternative government being formed.

    Someone in a previous post said if the circumstances of this MoNC were to happen to yoursef, then i’d be miffed about the justifications.

    Might have to be a nay. We’ll see.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    Although I’d love to bring down this government, I see no credible alternative government being formed.

    Someone in a previous post said if the circumstances of this MoNC were to happen to yoursef, then i’d be miffed about the justifications.

    Might have to be a nay. We’ll see.
    A credible alternative would be a general election.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    A credible alternative would be a general election.
    No need when the government is less than a month from a majority.

    Indeed, you should be happy at the thought. Just think what a Finance Bill with a majority backing it could entail.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    No need when the government is less than a month from a majority.

    Indeed, you should be happy at the thought. Just think what a Finance Bill with a majority backing it could entail.
    With the way this Government has been going the socs will be in love with it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    No need when the government is less than a month from a majority.

    Indeed, you should be happy at the thought. Just think what a Finance Bill with a majority backing it could entail.
    We will see about that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Paragraph 1 - Whilst I didn't explicitly consent to the bill, I also didn't block it and the bill was voted on within the Government. This was my own error rather than a Government error.

    Paragraph 2 - An MP not making opposition to a bill clear and then being replaced is a pretty weak argument for a Government MoNC. This has happened plenty of times before and will happen plenty of times again the future.

    Paragraph 3 - One member of the Conservatives attacking the Prime Minister isn't really that deep, regardless of the position of the member. You also say "let alone the coalition partners", but don't actually give any examples. Weak argument.

    Paragraph 4 - What is your proposed alternative Coalition? There is no alternative Government.

    I oppose this motion.
    Point 1 - I don’t see how you can claim that error solely on yourself. It is part of a wider point about miscommunication within this government and CG’s poor leadership in that he didn’t ask the minister responsible for a bill for their opinion before submitting it. I therefore reject this assertion.

    Point 2 - Make your mind up. When Joe and JoeL opposed the Trade Union Bill of Parliament 23 in a similar fashion it was a massive deal and warranted LP sacking them both from the cabinet, thought you were better than double standards Petros but then again; it seems to be a common trait in members of this government.

    Point 3 - Already addressed.

    Point 4 - My ideal outcome would be a temporary Labour-Libertarian Coalition with a view to an immediate general election; as I do not feel that they currently have enough seats to govern effectively.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Point 1 - I don’t see how you can claim that error solely on yourself. It is part of a wider point about miscommunication within this government and CG’s poor leadership in that he didn’t ask the minister responsible for a bill for their opinion before submitting it. I therefore reject this assertion.

    Point 2 - Make your mind up. When Joe and JoeL opposed the Trade Union Bill of Parliament 23 in a similar fashion it was a massive deal and warranted LP sacking them both from the cabinet, thought you were better than double standards Petros but then again; it seems to be a common trait in members of this government.

    Point 3 - Already addressed.

    Point 4 - My ideal outcome would be a temporary Labour-Libertarian Coalition with a view to an immediate general election; as I do not feel that they currently have enough seats to govern effectively.
    Point 2 was a valid reason back then and nobody criticised it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Point 1 - I don’t see how you can claim that error solely on yourself. It is part of a wider point about miscommunication within this government and CG’s poor leadership in that he didn’t ask the minister responsible for a bill for their opinion before submitting it. I therefore reject this assertion.

    Point 2 - Make your mind up. When Joe and JoeL opposed the Trade Union Bill of Parliament 23 in a similar fashion it was a massive deal and warranted LP sacking them both from the cabinet, thought you were better than double standards Petros but then again; it seems to be a common trait in members of this government.

    Point 3 - Already addressed.

    Point 4 - My ideal outcome would be a temporary Labour-Libertarian Coalition with a view to an immediate general election; as I do not feel that they currently have enough seats to govern effectively.
    Point 1 - I had voted on the bill (an abstain, which I regret), which meant I had consented. It was my own error.

    Point 2 - It wasn't a big thing - it became one because of the way everyone reacted to it. The reaction was because it was done by LP before I got online. I do not appreciate the comment about double standards.

    Point 4 - How likely is a Labour-Libertarian coalition, even a temporary one? Do both parties have the activity to call and fight an election? Nevertheless, I accept the validity of the point
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    As a Labour backbencher I've heard nothing about this MoNC and would struggle to see a LabLiber coalition I could support unless they compromised entirely on economics.

    Possibly because the proposers know that I'm voting nay. While, as always, there are parts of what the Government does which I think isn't up to scratch, other elements are exemplary of what we are looking to do in the MHoC. In particular, I've been impressed by ns_2's output.

    This is a glorified debating society, stop it with the pointless politicking.
    Online

    20
    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.
    By all reasonable accounts this has been a moderately successful government. The MoNC is a mixture of party politics and the proposers holding the Government to standards they would not themselves wish to be held to.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    By all reasonable accounts this has been a moderately successful government. The MoNC is a mixture of party politics and the proposers holding the Government to standards they would not themselves wish to be held to.
    I strongly object to this sentiment, I always hold myself to the highest possible standards and never I don’t see how this can be “party politicking” when it is proposed by an Independent MP.

    Rather; this MoNC is about the fact that we have a prime minister who is frankly appalling at his job, and dangerous levels of division in this government that aren’t healthy for the atmosphere here.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Point 2 was a valid reason back then and nobody criticised it.
    I don't think it is.

    Back in the Pet-LP coalition of the 23rd parliament, MP's not voting for government bills almost split us (i did for a brief time even advocate leaving which is the only time i have ever done that) so as bad as it was PR wise, i consider LP being given the boot as effective leadership from Wimbledon. A government that does not obey its issued whips is one which is wasting its opportunity. I have more respect for what he did than i did before.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I strongly object to this sentiment, I always hold myself to the highest possible standards and never I don’t see how this can be “party politicking” when it is proposed by an Independent MP.

    Rather; this MoNC is about the fact that we have a prime minister who is frankly appalling at his job, and dangerous levels of division in this government that aren’t healthy for the atmosphere here.
    It is clear that you are consistently acting to create whatever the name of your new party is supposed to be - a collection of the individuals who between them contribute most to the toxicity of the MHoC. Furthermore, as an independent you still engage in party politics through the constant attacks on every other party, as opposed to legitimate debate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It is clear that you are consistently acting to create whatever the name of your new party is supposed to be - a collection of the individuals who between them contribute most to the toxicity of the MHoC. Furthermore, as an independent you still engage in party politics through the constant attacks on every other party, as opposed to legitimate debate.
    This is an unsubstantiated personal attack and I demand that you retract it immediately, name me one post of mine in the last month that attacks every other party, you will be hard pressed to do so.

    The idea that myself and my allies contribute most of the toxic atmosphere in this house is also asinine. Life_Peer is by far the most toxic character in this house, he literally only comments to attack and insult people, he barely even writes legislation, whereas I have written a majority of bills and motions seen by the house this term, and outperform every other MP in terms of legislative output by a country mile (Joe, Jammy and Jacob have all held this mantle in the past also and fall into the same category.)

    CoffeeGeek is also an incredibly toxic figure who uses memes, GIFs and other childish behaviour to constantly goad and provoke others, while rarely ever contributing anything to debate.

    I respect you a lot TDA, but I feel that you’re a bit behind on events in the house and are simply wrong here. I’d strongly urge you to reconsider your position, and perhaps speak to Cranbrook about it privately.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Connor27)
    This is an unsubstantiated personal attack and I demand that you retract it immediately, name me one post of mine in the last month that attacks every other party, you will be hard pressed to do so.
    It's not a personal attack, you're associated with a proposed party as an independent MP, that is politicking.

    The idea that myself and my allies contribute most of the toxic atmosphere in this house is also asinine. Life_Peer is by far the most toxic character in this house, he literally only comments to attack and insult people, he barely even writes legislation, whereas I have written a majority of bills and motions seen by the house this term, and outperform every other MP in terms of legislative output by a country mile (Joe, Jammy and Jacob have all held this mantle in the past also and fall into the same category.)
    Please do not accuse others of personal attacks whilst dragging in names of other people and personally attacking them...

    CoffeeGeek is also an incredibly toxic figure who uses memes, GIFs and other childish behaviour to constantly goad and provoke others, while rarely ever contributing anything to debate.
    Again look above. You can't complain about personal attacks and then start doing it yourself.

    There's really no problem with GIFs or memes - it is a game and we are supposed to have fun there's nothing wrong with a little chuckle at a GIF or a meme...

    I respect you a lot TDA, but I feel that you’re a bit behind on events in the house and are simply wrong here. I’d strongly urge you to reconsider your position, and perhaps speak to Cranbrook about it privately.
    Yes, speak to a person who's seconded this unjustified, awful "MoNC". They are definitely the right person to talk to...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    It's not a personal attack, you're associated with a proposed party as an independent MP, that is politicking.



    Please do not accuse others of personal attacks whilst dragging in names of other people and personally attacking them...



    Again look above. You can't complain about personal attacks and then start doing it yourself.

    There's really no problem with GIFs or memes - it is a game and we are supposed to have fun there's nothing wrong with a little chuckle at a GIF or a meme...



    Yes, speak to a person who's seconded this unjustified, awful "MoNC". They are definitely the right person to talk to...
    If you think that citing substantiated examples is a personal attack then I’d advise you to take some basic courses in critical thinking, you’ll need it since apparently you want to get into Oxbridge...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    This is an unsubstantiated personal attack and I demand that you retract it immediately, name me one post of mine in the last month that attacks every other party, you will be hard pressed to do so.

    The idea that myself and my allies contribute most of the toxic atmosphere in this house is also asinine. Life_Peer is by far the most toxic character in this house, he literally only comments to attack and insult people, he barely even writes legislation, whereas I have written a majority of bills and motions seen by the house this term, and outperform every other MP in terms of legislative output by a country mile (Joe, Jammy and Jacob have all held this mantle in the past also and fall into the same category.)

    CoffeeGeek is also an incredibly toxic figure who uses memes, GIFs and other childish behaviour to constantly goad and provoke others, while rarely ever contributing anything to debate.

    I respect you a lot TDA, but I feel that you’re a bit behind on events in the house and are simply wrong here. I’d strongly urge you to reconsider your position, and perhaps speak to Cranbrook about it privately.
    I'm sorry, on what basis am I obliged to only use evidence from the past month? Haven't you been banned for most of that period? Your history in the house speaks for itself and if you ever realistically want to be taken seriously with these motions I'd restrict yourself to debate and writing legislation for a couple of terms.

    I'm disinclined to 'withdraw' this comment, which I feel to be relevant to the question of this being politicking. I've explained my opinion and I think people who are active enough in the House to not simply vote on this along party lines will have enough exposure to draw their own opinion. If they disagree with me, fine, I don't have the time to trawl through your posting history. If you want to think that this means you win this argument, I'm also fine with that.

    In response to the other points:

    Jammy and Jacob are both people I respect, they're good debaters and have a good history of producing legislation but the number of people their attitudes have driven away is incredible (though, to their credit, they've both softened somewhat recently).

    I like Joe but his legislative output, leaving policy aside, is mostly slapdash and awful.

    For what it's worth I like Life_peer and think he's pretty funny for the most part, but I can't deny that in the past he's been a total **** to a lot of people, and, like me, his actual activity has faded in recent terms. I would be surprised if he disagreed with this assessment.

    I'm not a fan of CoffeeGeek; I think that's no secret - in particular, I think he's too convinced of his own ability in debate and therefore assumes that his opponents are stupid from a very early point. Where his conduct differs, however, is that I've not seen him undertake any systemic campaigns essentially designed to attack individuals or parties.

    If cran wants to convince me to vote otherwise I'm all ears, though I'm automatically sceptical of any persuasion which needs to be done in private, since it serves only to deny the persuadee access to alternative opinions.
 
 
 
  • create my feed
  • edit my feed
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.