Election of a Speaker: Vote Watch

Poll: Who should be elected speaker?
Aph (11)
28.21%
Re-Open Nominations (election process will restart) (28)
71.79%
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Following a withdrawal from Jarred, we now have one candidate remaining for the speakership: Aph, whose manifesto is displayed below. A vote will now take place with the option to elect Aph or re-open nominations.

Aph

0
TheRadishPrince
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Still mulling over this one. I'll await any comments here from the contesting individual or those opposing his induction before making a final judgement.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Pros of Aph

He's committed
He's active
He wants what's best for the house
He doesn't tend to break any rules
He's unlikely to favour one party over another, having been in nearly all of them.

Cons of Aph

Many ideas here are either unfeasible or not going to have the desired effect.
There will be plenty of disagreements between him and speaker, and the rest of MPs
As a result of the above, VoNCs will probably occur
Last edited by 04MR17; 1 month ago
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
The proposal about independent candidates, even though I am the Green Party MP in all but name, is why I am not supporting Aph as Speaker.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by 04MR17)
Pros of Aph

He's committed
He's active
He wants what's best for the house
He doesn't tend to break any rules
He's unlikely to favour one party over another, having been in them all.

Cons of Aph

Many ideas here are either unfeasible or not going to have the desired effect.
There will be plenty of disagreements between him and speaker, and the rest of MPs
As a result of the above, VoNCs will probably occur
Don't think he's been in the Tories.
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
Not surprised that Jarred has pulled out of the Speakership election given the concerns raised by several members including me over his activity. Having said that, I cannot support Aph either as I still have concerns over the proposals for allowing amendments to bills, stimulating by-elections and scrapping the 'Ask the Government thread' in favour for fortnightly PMQs whereby these are technically questions directed to the Prime Minister only. For those reasons, I've voted RON and I sincerely hope that a credible candidate would put themselves forward - I have one in mind.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Andrew97)
Don't think he's been in the Tories.
Edited. :yy:

Full history:
Green Party (September 2014 - December 2015)
Liberal Party (December 2015 - May 2016)
Labour Party (half a day in May 2016)
Socialist Party (July 2016 - April 2018)
Labour Party (April 2018 - unknown)
Liberal Democrat (July 2018 - December 2018)
Libertarian Party (January 2019 - May 2019)
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
I'm currently supporting the Right Honourable Re Open-Nominations.
0
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
Although I don't want this speakership election process to be prolonged, I can't bring myself to willingly vote for Aph as Speaker. So for this time it'll be RON for me
1
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
Not surprised that Jarred has pulled out of the Speakership election given the concerns raised by several members including me over his activity. Having said that, I cannot support Aph either as I still have concerns over the proposals for allowing amendments to bills, stimulating by-elections and scrapping the 'Ask the Government thread' in favour for fortnightly PMQs whereby these are technically questions directed to the Prime Minister only. For those reasons, I've voted RON and I sincerely hope that a credible candidate would put themselves forward - I have one in mind.
Well that's not the reason I pulled out. It is reasonable for members to have had that concern, but I was absolutely committed to being active enough for it and had no fears in myself about being able to fulfil my obligations, else I'd have sat it out entirely. I already mentioned why I would be more motivated to be active for that than other things, but obviously it doesn't matter now so I'm not going over old ground

(Original post by 04MR17)
I shall suggest that RON winning will be an indication from the house that you'd be the preferred candidate over Aph. Would you consider re-running despite not following through with the automation? You might feel it is your biggest selling point in this election but honestly I think not wanting to make huge changes is probably your biggest strength, and many people would support you as speaker regardless of this.
Quoting from the now-closed thread. I think such a result is less an affirmation for me, and more a combination of a) not wanting a Speaker unopposed and b) a rejection of some of Aph's slightly less traditional proposals.

I wouldn't ever rule anything out 100%, but I think with a shed-load of what I wanted to do just tossed out, I wouldn't be a good choice.
1
TheRadishPrince
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
I have decided to vote for RON.

I still believe Aph can be capable as speaker, but I will vote against him as I strongly advise Aph to make changes and amendments to his manifesto and to his targets as speaker based on what we all brought up during debate stage to be possibly elected in the next run of voting.

The ones that seemed to cause most issue were replacing Ask the Government - (personally though I'd actually support this) and also his stance against independent candidates - one that I would actually vote for you if you went back on as I am a huge advocate of the independent candidate.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Jarred)
Quoting from the now-closed thread. I think such a result is less an affirmation for me, and more a combination of a) not wanting a Speaker unopposed and b) a rejection of some of Aph's slightly less traditional proposals.

I wouldn't ever rule anything out 100%, but I think with a shed-load of what I wanted to do just tossed out, I wouldn't be a good choice.
But are you still motivated to be speaker without the automation?
Because I think if you had stayed in the race but removed that policy you'd still the favourite.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
Bloody heck. The MHoC has really changed.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Jarred)
Well that's not the reason I pulled out. It is reasonable for members to have had that concern, but I was absolutely committed to being active enough for it and had no fears in myself about being able to fulfil my obligations, else I'd have sat it out entirely. I already mentioned why I would be more motivated to be active for that than other things, but obviously it doesn't matter now so I'm not going over old ground



Quoting from the now-closed thread. I think such a result is less an affirmation for me, and more a combination of a) not wanting a Speaker unopposed and b) a rejection of some of Aph's slightly less traditional proposals.

I wouldn't ever rule anything out 100%, but I think with a shed-load of what I wanted to do just tossed out, I wouldn't be a good choice.
Can I ask why did you pull out?
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
If RON wins who is going to step up is the question?

Right now I'm not sure if I should vote RON and see who else stands or not bother voting at all considering many do not want to stand.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
There are two sorts of thing proposed by aph: nutty things requiring amendments which will fail, and really nutty things.
0
abucha3
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
Voted for Aph. I really cannot understand members sitting on the sidelines declaring they will vote to re-open nominations.

Aph has taken the time to come up with a manifesto, and is prepared to take on the administrative burden of being Speaker. It is not exactly a 'fun' role, but a role where the Speaker acts as a service to the House and to the rest of us; Aph has put himself forward and declared his willingness to take that on.

Colleagues who are voting to re-open nominations, are effectively saying no one is better than the candidate put before us. How is that fair? Also, what do you expect to happen if the House votes to re-open nominations? Someone else stands? Well why did they not stand the first time round? Clearly their heart would not be in it, yet some would rather that option than vote for the person who has bothered to say he would give it his best shot. If you think no one is better than Aph, why didn't you stand?

On balance, I probably would have voted for Jarred, but he has withdrawn, so I will vote for the only candidate that is standing. I do not agree with everything in his manifesto but he also will be held accountable to us; we could call a VONC if he was acting in a way which was so intolerable (I am sure that would not be necessary though)

I would urge members to get behind the only candidate that has bothered to put his name forward and take on the responsibility, as someone who wants to give this his best shot and vote for Aph, rather than this is ridiculous practice of reopening nominations.
Last edited by abucha3; 1 month ago
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by abucha3)
Voted for Aph. I really cannot understand members sitting on the sidelines declaring they will vote to re-open nominations.

Aph has taken the time to come up with a manifesto, and is prepared to take on the administrative burden of being Speaker. It is not exactly a 'fun' role, but a role where the Speaker acts as a service to the House and to the rest of us; Aph has put himself forward and declared his willingness to take that on.

Colleagues who are voting to re-open nominations, are effectively saying no one is better than the candidate put before us. How is that fair? Also, what do you expect to happen if the House votes to re-open nominations? Someone else stands? Well why did they not stand the first time round? Clearly their heart would not be in it, yet some would rather that option than vote for the person who has bothered to say he would give it his best shot. If you think no one is better than Aph, why didn't you stand?

On balance, I probably would have voted for Jarred, but he has withdrawn, so I will vote for the only candidate that is standing. I do not agree with everything in his manifesto but he also will be held accountable to us; we could call a VONC if he was acting in a way which was so intolerable (I am sure that would not be necessary though)

I would urge members to get behind the only candidate that has bothered to put his name forward and take on the responsibility, as someone who wants to give this his best shot and vote for Aph, rather than this is ridiculous practice of reopening nominations.
Firstly, I broadly agree with your sentiments in giving Aph credit for running, and for his dedication to the house.

I will add that my first election into a party leadership role was on a Re-Open Nomination ballot after a single candidate was unsuccessful. Given that I'm now the leader and my party's parliamentary size has grown considerably I'm not sure that you'd say my heart hasn't been in it.

Lastly, on VoNCs, before Fez VoNCing a speaker was more common that you'd like (or I'd like frankly), in previous occassions it's been one mis-handled thing or one significant mistake then the VoNC would come and the speaker would be out within 3 months. This happened consecutively for a while and it was sad to watch. For members who remember those days I'm not going to entertain a debate over whether it was right to VoNC them, I just want to make abucha and anyone else aware that some members are extremely keen to submit them at times and this shouldn't be taken for granted.
0
abucha3
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by 04MR17)
Firstly, I broadly agree with your sentiments in giving Aph credit for running, and for his dedication to the house.

I will add that my first election into a party leadership role was on a Re-Open Nomination ballot after a single candidate was unsuccessful. Given that I'm now the leader and my party's parliamentary size has grown considerably I'm not sure that you'd say my heart hasn't been in it.

Lastly, on VoNCs, before Fez VoNCing a speaker was more common that you'd like (or I'd like frankly), in previous occassions it's been one mis-handled thing or one significant mistake then the VoNC would come and the speaker would be out within 3 months. This happened consecutively for a while and it was sad to watch. For members who remember those days I'm not going to entertain a debate over whether it was right to VoNC them, I just want to make abucha and anyone else aware that some members are extremely keen to submit them at times and this shouldn't be taken for granted.
Of course, and I would agree that your leadership has been a success that has seen your party win an election and form a Government. I would argue though that the role and electing of a Speaker is very different to that of a Party Leader. There are many factors that would influence a decision on whether to stand for the leadership of your party, and they are not necessarily time bound, so it would be different if you decided on standing for the leadership of your party in those circumstances; for want of a better word, it is more of a 'political' decision.

The election of a Speaker though is more based on your willingness to do the job, and your ability to do the job. Yes, candidates produce manifestos but the ideas are broadly the same, given the role is to ensure the smooth running of the House and its day to day business. When you elect a Party Leader though you are signing up to their vision, the belief that their values and ideas will bring you electoral success, and that is why I do not think you can make a direct comparison.

If a Re-Open Nomination Ballot won for the leadership of a party, then in my opinion, I can understand why others would then wish to stand, as they have mulled it over and feel as though maybe their vision for the direction of the party will prove successful, or they have decided they want to try and have the chance to run a political party with their agenda.

If a Re-Open Nomination Ballot wins for Speaker then the only I reason I can think of that someone would then stand would be 'oh alright, I will give it a go then', and that is why I would say their heart would not be in it, because I think they would have known the first time round whether they would have wanted the role or not.
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,899

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (219)
12.46%
Excited (164)
9.33%
Worried (308)
17.53%
Terrified (388)
22.08%
Meh (180)
10.24%
Confused (38)
2.16%
Putting on a brave face (243)
13.83%
Impatient (217)
12.35%

Watched Threads

View All