Turn on thread page Beta

Motion of No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government watch

Announcements
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    Sources inside the government tell me that an informal agreement was made and (at least until tonight) the Conservative Party intended on betraying it. You are indeed entitled to consider whether you stand a candidate if you do not make an agreement to the contrary; do you both deny that this agreement was made? It is entirely the buisness of this house because, if there is any proof in my allegations, it shows for certain that this government is not fit for purpose.
    Can you outline further details of this agreement. Personally i intend to vote for the two government candidates with the highest chance of victory. That has always been the case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You say that as if the Tories EVER respected their coalition partners.
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Good point.
    I have to say this must be the most unlikely partnership I've encountered in the MHoC right after the Green-Liberal-UKIP coalition.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    Sources inside the government tell me that an informal agreement was made and (at least until tonight) the Conservative Party intended on betraying it. You are indeed entitled to consider whether you stand a candidate if you do not make an agreement to the contrary; do you both deny that this agreement was made? It is entirely the buisness of this house because, if there is any proof in my allegations, it shows for certain that this government is not fit for purpose.
    Which is it, coalition agreement or informal?

    You're really failing here
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Aww, look at you two lovebirds! I have to say this must be the most unlikely partnership I've encountered in the MHoC right after the Green-Liberal-UKIP coalition. :laugh:
    Childish.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Can you outline further details of this agreement. Personally i intend to vote for the two government candidates with the highest chance of victory. That has always been the case.
    Is this a confirmation that the Nat Cons have no intention of standing?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Aww, look at you two lovebirds! I have to say this must be the most unlikely partnership I've encountered in the MHoC right after the Green-Liberal-UKIP coalition. :laugh:
    two people can agree with each other without necessarily being in partnership or particularly liking each other, opportunism is part and parcel of politics
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    two people can agree with each other without necessarily being in partnership or particularly liking each other, opportunism is part and parcel of politics
    But of course, it was all tongue-in-cheek.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    But of course, it was all tongue-in-cheek.
    We know you better than that, how's the rectum?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You say that as if the Tories EVER respected their coalition partners.
    Oh, and JD, when I think of our coalition with Liberals, you were certainly the one respecting them the most! That's why they were constantly complaining about you and why you did all you could to vote in violation of the formal coalition agreement and I, the disrespectful selfish oppressor, had to replace you as MP in order to unanimously support one of their election pledges. Keep that respect going, mate!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    Sources inside the government tell me that an informal agreement was made and (at least until tonight) the Conservative Party intended on betraying it. You are indeed entitled to consider whether you stand a candidate if you do not make an agreement to the contrary; do you both deny that this agreement was made? It is entirely the buisness of this house because, if there is any proof in my allegations, it shows for certain that this government is not fit for purpose.
    You said coalition agreement and now you're saying informal. Which one is it? I can't possibly comment if you can't make up your mind.

    What's inside the coalition agreement is not the business of the House at all because it has nothing to do with the House, the only people that need to think about it are the parties in coalition.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    You said coalition agreement and now you're saying informal. Which one is it? I can't possibly comment if you can't make up your mind.

    What's inside the coalition agreement is not the business of the House at all because it has nothing to do with the House, the only people that need to think about it are the parties in coalition.
    It doesn't reflect the best if you're breaking it thouhg...
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Oh, and JD, when I think of our coalition with Liberals, you were certainly the one respecting them the most! That's why they were constantly complaining about you and why you did all you could to vote in violation of the formal coalition agreement and I, the disrespectful selfish oppressor, had to replace you as MP in order to unanimously support one of their election pledges. Keep that respect going, mate!
    Is this the coalition agreement that you ignored party feedback on? I also wonder who the most complained about member right now is, I think it might be you based on all the feedback I've been hearing given you seem incapable of posting without quickly descending into the toxicity that CG constantly talks about eliminating while personally contributing to it and failing to punish members of his party that also contribute *cough* you.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    You said coalition agreement and now you're saying informal. Which one is it? I can't possibly comment if you can't make up your mind.

    What's inside the coalition agreement is not the business of the House at all because it has nothing to do with the House, the only people that need to think about it are the parties in coalition.
    What is in the agreement kinda is the business of the house on this matter, if it is being ignored then that is a reason to lack confidence in the government.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    You said coalition agreement and now you're saying informal. Which one is it? I can't possibly comment if you can't make up your mind.

    What's inside the coalition agreement is not the business of the House at all because it has nothing to do with the House, the only people that need to think about it are the parties in coalition.
    Is Afc wrong when he confirms Saunders' claims?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which is it, coalition agreement or informal? You're really failing here
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Can you outline further details of this agreement. Personally i intend to vote for the two government candidates with the highest chance of victory. That has always been the case.
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    You said coalition agreement and now you're saying informal. Which one is it? I can't possibly comment if you can't make up your mind.

    What's inside the coalition agreement is not the business of the House at all because it has nothing to do with the House, the only people that need to think about it are the parties in coalition.
    To clarify: this was an informal agreement between the coalition partners which should mean that the Conservative Party do not take part in the next by-election. Contrary to your image of harmony, the disagreement that has taken place internally has been outlined to me by Afcwimbledon2 who has told me he is happy to be named to give these allegations the merit they hold. I expect that, as hinted, you will no longer be breaking this agreement. However, cranbrook_aspie is correct to say that this type of behaviour is truly disgusting and shows why this motion deserves to pass. If you want this coalition to survive if this motion does not pass, this type of behaviour needs to change immediately. I demand that you immediately withdraw your accusations that what I have said is dishonest and change your behaviour instead of bringing my name down.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    To clarify: this was an informal agreement between the coalition partners which should mean that the Conservative Party do not take part in the next by-election. Contrary to your image of harmony, the disagreement that has taken place internally has been outlined to me by Afcwimbledon2 who has told me he is happy to be named to give these allegations the merit they hold. I expect that, as hinted, you will no longer be breaking this agreement. However, cranbrook_aspie is correct to say that this type of behaviour is truly disgusting and shows why this motion deserves to pass. If you want this coalition to survive if this motion does not pass, this type of behaviour needs to change immediately. I demand that you immediately withdraw your accusations that what I have said is dishonest and change your behaviour instead of bringing my name down.
    I won't, it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask given that the story changed so rapidly.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    To clarify: this was an informal agreement between the coalition partners which should mean that the Conservative Party do not take part in the next by-election. Contrary to your image of harmony, the disagreement that has taken place internally has been outlined to me by Afcwimbledon2 who has told me he is happy to be named to give these allegations the merit they hold. I expect that, as hinted, you will no longer be breaking this agreement. However, [uer=1988487]cranbrook_aspie[/user] is correct to say that this type of behaviour is truly disgusting and shows why this motion deserves to pass. If you want this coalition to survive if this motion does not pass, this type of behaviour needs to change immediately. I demand that you immediately withdraw your accusations that what I have said is dishonest and change your behaviour instead of bringing my name down.
    This I can confirm. I had resigned as leader anyway (that was to come out publically), and will be resigning from government in due course.

    I will be making a statement on these events shortly.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I won't, it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask given that the story changed so rapidly.
    That was addressed at the Conservative Party rather than you, that is my bad; it was a legitimate question for you to ask.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Let's face it, this is not the first time the Tories have done this sort of thing, they ALWAYS do this sort of thing. They constantly believe that they should never step aside in a by election, even if it means losing.

    On this basis the Liberals should never have agreed, it was obviously going to lead to this
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Let's face it, this is not the first time the Tories have done this sort of thing, they ALWAYS do this sort of thing. They constantly believe that they should never step aside in a by election, even if it means losing.
    Hear, hear!
 
 
 
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
Who is most responsible for your success at university

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.