Poll: Who should be elected speaker?
Aph (11)
28.21%
Re-Open Nominations (election process will restart) (28)
71.79%
This discussion is closed.
abucha3
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 months ago
#21
(Original post by 04MR17)
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.
I also do not advocate members being trigger happy with a VoNC. I was suggesting that there are members who are claiming that the ideas put forward by Aph are 'nutty' and would change the workings of this place beyond all recognition; I am saying in that sort of extremity that members are predicting, we would not be powerless.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 months ago
#22
(Original post by 04MR17)
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.
Jarred was the favourate even with the policy.

While some may believe that voting against Aph is affirmation for Jarred i don't and would not support him in a second round, indecision and a lack of conviction should not be rewarded.

If people are voting RON (or not) it should be purely on their opinion of Aph as speaker.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 months ago
#23
(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.
Personally there are two things, first is knowing Aph and the other is knowing the position (not least having formerly semi held it as deputy speaker).

So we'll put aside for the moment Aph's... uniqueness and just look at him and the position. A lot of what he wants to do doesn't require him to be speaker because it requires amendments, a lot of the stuff that doesn't out and out require amendments would require significant overreach of speakership powers. Then you get his promise to approve all prospective parties which will either fall by the wayside because people take the piss with 1 man parties, or he sticks with it and the CT block it.

Really, he's just a bit too radical and sees the position as too much more than an administrative role
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 months ago
#24
(Original post by Rakas21)
Jarred was the favourate even with the policy.

While some may believe that voting against Aph is affirmation for Jarred i don't and would not support him in a second round, indecision and a lack of conviction should not be rewarded.

If people are voting RON (or not) it should be purely on their opinion of Aph as speaker.
I know.

It's less about indecision determining suitability and more about selecting the best candidate surely..

I know.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 months ago
#25
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Personally there are two things, first is knowing Aph and the other is knowing the position (not least having formerly semi held it as deputy speaker).

So we'll put aside for the moment Aph's... uniqueness and just look at him and the position. A lot of what he wants to do doesn't require him to be speaker because it requires amendments, a lot of the stuff that doesn't out and out require amendments would require significant overreach of speakership powers. Then you get his promise to approve all prospective parties which will either fall by the wayside because people take the piss with 1 man parties, or he sticks with it and the CT block it.

Really, he's just a bit too radical and sees the position as too much more than an administrative role
Seeing it as more than an administrative role isn't a bad thing. He's said in the bar that he wouldn't push changes through if nobody wanted them.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 months ago
#26
(Original post by 04MR17)
Seeing it as more than an administrative role isn't a bad thing. He's said in the bar that he wouldn't push changes through if nobody wanted them.
It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but Aph appears to take it a bit beyond that, just as Connor seems he would. As for not doing anything without the consent of the house that really limits his legacy because there is next to nothing in his manifesto that is likely to make it and it makes the case "he can do all this without being speaker" even stronger because next to nothing could be done without amendment, and the few things he could do without amendment have been tried before and dropped because they didn't work, i.e. legacy bills which face the same issue as new ones: a lack of willingness to debate from the vast majority of the house
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 months ago
#27
Given that Aph will approve all prospective parties, if he gets in I will propose the following party.
The Free Beer for Toddlers Party.
Policies:
All toddlers (defined as children between the ages of 1 and 5) will be provided with free beer.
#MakeGinLaneRealityAgain
0
TheRadishPrince
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 months ago
#28
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Given that Aph will approve all prospective parties, if he gets in I will propose the following party.
The Free Beer for Toddlers Party.
Policies:
All toddlers (defined as children between the ages of 1 and 5) will be provided with free beer.
#MakeGinLaneRealityAgain
He already clarified to me in the debate stage (I'll try to remember as best I can) that it would be unlikely ALL parties would be approved and it would be a case by case basis needing at least a few members active (I believe he said 3 very active members and more if they weren't all very active) and to be something that isn't just a mockery etc. I feel like that is much better than letting everything form and may be different to his manifesto now, but is something I hope to see rectified in an updated manifesto in the likely second round of voting to be this stance he brought up to me.
0
Glaz
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 months ago
#29
Agree with The Mogg - honestly am not able to vote for Aph so definitely going to be RON from me.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 months ago
#30
(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.
I definitely agree with this, however I always find coronations concerning (even my own as Deputy Speaker). I am also worried by the amount of people who have declared themselves to be voting for RON, as this could mean that Aph would be entering the role without the confidence of a non-insignificant number of the members of the House.

In short, I am struggling to decide which way is best to go on this vote.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 months ago
#31
I am voting for Aph.
I believe he can show compromise.
If he can't I'll be the first to VoNC.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 months ago
#32
It’s RoN for me.

If RoN wins, I pledge that I will become much more active, (obviously on a daily basis) to be able to ensure that the House continues.

Although I disagree with Aph for becoming the Speaker of the House, I think this House has so much more to give. We need someone great to lead this House forward, and whilst Aph is not that, I would hate to see it disappear.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 months ago
#33
The suspense is killing me for the outcome of this, honestly. Good luck to Aph.
0
yaseen1000
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 months ago
#34
I shall be voting for RON
0
EagleKingdom
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 month ago
#35
I have voted for RON. I would prefer if we had a pool of candidates to choose from rather than having one candidate. I hope in the second round we'll have a number of candidates putting their name on the ballot. Finally, I don't see Aph as a suitable candidate for Speaker given his radical proposals and the conversation with him.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 month ago
#36
Let's get the preemptive "oof" in.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 month ago
#37
Unlucky Aph.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 month ago
#38
Will be interesting to see who stands now.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 month ago
#39
(Original post by Mr T 999)
Will be interesting to see who stands now.
Not Connor, he probably remains terrified of this happening to him. Tbh, Aph's best chance is probably to go again in the hopes Connor does.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#40
And we go again... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

It is really important for me to be involved in helping make my university better

Strongly disagree (15)
9.68%
Disagree (11)
7.1%
Neither agree or disagree (50)
32.26%
Agree (59)
38.06%
Strongly Agree (20)
12.9%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed