Motion of No Confidence in the Speaker Watch

This discussion is closed.
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
Motion of No Confidence in the Speaker

Proposer: SoggyCabbages (Labour)
Seconders: Connor27 (Conservative), LiberOfLondon (Libertarian), The Mogg (Conservative), CountBrandenburg (Conservative)

That this House has no confidence in The Speaker

In his relatively short reign,Speaker Andrew has presided over a disproportionate amount of technical blunders and Guidance Document/Constitutional mistakes.

Prior to his election, it was well documented (And even self-admitted) that Speaker Andrew was technologically incompetent. He spoke with great pride about how he was seemingly (put on or not) unable to do basic tech-related tasks which most of the wider house could do with ease. So it was a surprise when he put himself forward to an administrative role which would require some level of tech nuance.

However, this nuance has not materialised. A quick glance through the ‘Ask the Speaker’ thread throughout his tenure displays starkly how out of his depth he is with even basic speaker duties. Updates are littered with hyperlinking errors, and Bills/Motions are consistently formatted wrong. Using basic BBCode and knowing how to format bills is not a hard concept, even after factoring in the apparent deficiencies with the TSR forum itself.

He has disregarded the Guidance Document when it comes to voting review and unashamedly disregarded the Constitution when it came to sub-forum inactivity. For someone to become speaker they really need to have been established in the house for a while and have a vast understanding of the documents that rule it. Most people prior to Andrew’s election would not have thought so.

Most recently he decided to, and without consultation with the proposer, deem a bill as a ‘joke bill’ because he did not agree with how it was written. This decision was made out of a baseless argument that had no real Constitutional or Guidance Document backing. Even after the author’s protest that it wasn’t a joke bill, he still refused to reverse his decision.

Speaker Andrew was not anyone's real desired candidate, it was basically a choice between Aph and him, which is like choosing the lesser of two evils.

I commend this motion to the house


There will be three days of debate on this motion to enable Andrew97 to respond and for members of the House to ask questions of him and of the proposers.
0
Glaz
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
I'm completely happy with Andrew as Speaker and have full confidence in him :yy:

Also, please tell me why a Bill with a line "This Act will be cited as the Reeeee Bill 2019." should be taken seriously.
Last edited by Glaz; 3 weeks ago
2
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#3
I will begin by stating that Andrew is not perfect. However, it is wrong to expect absolute perfection from one who is only human. We all make mistakes, and Andrew has proved himself as someone who does care about mistakes and who gets frustrated when things go wrong. You may not see his frustration, as most of it (rightly) takes place out of public view, but it is there.

I frankly do not think that technical issues are a good enough reason to vote in favour of a MoNC in a Speaker. Being Speaker is a thankless job and while constructive criticism (pointing out errors and offering solutions) is welcomed, it is far too easy to sit back and criticise when it’s not you who is responsible.

As for Andrew’s decisions as Speaker, this is a better reason if you’re going to propose a MoNC. It should be decided through thorough debate in this thread whether they were right or not and I am sure Andrew will be happy to discuss his reasons with everyone.

Overall, I would also ask members of the House to ask themselves who else would be Speaker? Who is suitable and willing to take the role? This concerns me and should concern us all. I don’t pose it as an argument against voting for this motion, but it must be borne in mind.

For myself, there is the extra question of who would I work as well with? Andrew and I fundamentally work well together, and I personally do not wish to see his Speakership cut short for reasons I do not see as fundamentally grave enough.
3
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
I will be issuing a full response tomorrow.
1
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
CatusStarbright should this not be announced in an update or will it be included in tomorrow's?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I will begin by stating that Andrew is not perfect. However, it is wrong to expect absolute perfection from one who is only human. We all make mistakes, and Andrew has proved himself as someone who does care about mistakes and who gets frustrated when things go wrong. You may not see his frustration, as most of it (rightly) takes place out of public view, but it is there.

I frankly do not think that technical issues are a good enough reason to vote in favour of a MoNC in a Speaker. Being Speaker is a thankless job and while constructive criticism (pointing out errors and offering solutions) is welcomed, it is far too easy to sit back and criticise when it’s not you who is responsible.

As for Andrew’s decisions as Speaker, this is a better reason if you’re going to propose a MoNC. It should be decided through thorough debate in this thread whether they were right or not and I am sure Andrew will be happy to discuss his reasons with everyone.

Overall, I would also ask members of the House to ask themselves who else would be Speaker? Who is suitable and willing to take the role? This concerns me and should concern us all. I don’t pose it as an argument against voting for this motion, but it must be borne in mind.

For myself, there is the extra question of who would I work as well with? Andrew and I fundamentally work well together, and I personally do not wish to see his Speakership cut short for reasons I do not see as fundamentally grave enough.
The “who would do a better job?” counter-argument is completely redundant to this motion.

The question here is simple: has Andrew done a good enough job as speaker to warrant the continued confidence of the House? I believe from the case myself, Soggy and the other seconders have made, that the answer is an astounding “no, he doesn’t deserve our continued confidence.”

You will note that nothing precludes Andrew from standing in a potential speakership election triggered by this MoNC passing, surely the question of “is there anyone better?” is better addressed in that election scenario, where Andrew can stand and compare platforms with other candidates, there here, where we are debating the issue of “has Andrew done a good job?”
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
CatusStarbright should this not be announced in an update or will it be included in tomorrow's?
You are right to ask this. Andrew is going to put it in tomorrow's update.
(Original post by Connor27)
The “who would do a better job?” counter-argument is completely redundant to this motion.

The question here is simple: has Andrew done a good enough job as speaker to warrant the continued confidence of the House? I believe from the case myself, Soggy and the other seconders have made, that the answer is an astounding “no, he doesn’t deserve our continued confidence.”

You will note that nothing precludes Andrew from standing in a potential speakership election triggered by this MoNC passing, surely the question of “is there anyone better?” is better addressed in that election scenario, where Andrew can stand and compare platforms with other candidates, there here, where we are debating the issue of “has Andrew done a good job?”
You've focused on what I explicitly stated is not an argument.

I think it might help if you expanded on his decisions and discussed what you find objectionable. This part of the MoNC is vague for a lot of people.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
We get it Connor, you want to lose to RoN and Aph again, except this time without any excuses for your loss
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
There are fundamentally up to three questions to ask, a primary, secondary, and tertiary.

The primary question is this: do you have confidence in the speaker?
The answer is a qualified yes. He is not perfect, but with the right corrective action he is good enough and it is quite telling that half the motion is not dedicated to what Andrew has done but the fact he is less computer literate than some, or even most, something which is irrelevant if he is sufficiently literate for the role, and he is.

With this being answered yes the secondary question is this: are there better alternatives who could replace Andrew with this motion being used to create the vacancy?
Very easy to answer, no! Unless there have been significant, and unexpected, changes recently there are only two people who actively desire the role: Aph and Connor. Neither of these individuals have the right mentality for Speaker and Connor certainly lacks the maturity to be speaker. There might be better speakers in the house but none want to be speaker at this time.

The tertiary question, which is irrelevant due to the secondary being answered with "no", is this: do any of the better candidates have a realistic chance of winning or will the replacement likely be worse?
There isn't a better candidate that wants the role so no need to consider.
2
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
The list of names is telling, nobody is both active and taken seriously.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The list of names is telling, nobody is both active and taken seriously.
Well maybe the former because you are just generally negative and slightly bitter constantly?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Glaz)
I'm completely happy with Andrew as Speaker and have full confidence in him :yy:

Also, please tell me why a Bill with a line "This Act will be cited as the Reeeee Bill 2019." should be taken seriously.
PRSOM


The only one of the substantive points where I agree with the proposer over the speaker is the one regarding formatting (which isn't that hard!), but that's hardly a reason to VoNC a speaker.
1
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
I continue to have full confidence in Andrew as Speaker. Yes there have been errors in updates, but everyone's human and I think we can allow everyone the slip-up. Petty and vindictive are the words that spring to mind when I think of this VONC.
1
EagleKingdom
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
I sometimes thought that Andrew was pretending to be incompetent in tech-related tasks to get attention from Catus, or anyone else for that matter.
1
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
Surely, he should have been assisted.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
I will vote against this VoNC. A few errors in formatting is not enough to remove a Speaker.

I have appreciated the timeliness of updates and responses to items I have sent.
1
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
Abstain! The arguemnt presented is not strong enough for me. Majority of the motion is geared towards him being incompetent in tech which I agree he has made mistakes in the update but I don't feel its a strong reason to vote him out. Secondly, it's soggy's inability to be serious that made that trans bill into a joke bill, calling it a "reee bill" cannot be taken seriously which is a shame as it could have been very good bill to debate if it was written seriously. Thirdly, my main concern I don't see anyone reasonable replacing him Aph and Connor are not suitable candidates sadly . So we are stuck with Andrew for now I guess.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by barnetlad)
I will vote against this VoNC. A few errors in formatting is not enough to remove a Speaker.

I have appreciated the timeliness of updates and responses to items I have sent.
Have you actually read the motion? The formatting errors are one minor point amongst several
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by toronto353)
I continue to have full confidence in Andrew as Speaker. Yes there have been errors in updates, but everyone's human and I think we can allow everyone the slip-up. Petty and vindictive are the words that spring to mind when I think of this VONC.
Which previous Speaker has cancelled voting reviews simply because they don’t like the fact that several seats would go to by election as a result and also refused to shut down a party after evidence emerged that 30 days passed without a post in the subforum?

Additionally, can you name a Speaker that has ruled a bill to be a joke bill in order to shut down debate when the proposer of the Bill made explicitly clear that it was serious and not a joke?

Go on, you were DS for a long, long time. Has any Speaker done that before?

People obsessing over the minor point of errors in the update is utterly bizarre.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by EagleKingdom)
I sometimes thought that Andrew was pretending to be incompetent in tech-related tasks to get attention from Catus, or anyone else for that matter.
Maybe so EK but that’s a minor point here relative to everything else in the motion.
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

Are you registered to vote?

18-20 years old (yes) (260)
54.28%
18-20 years old (no) (62)
12.94%
20-25 years old (yes) (80)
16.7%
20-25 years old (no) (9)
1.88%
25-30 years old (yes) (25)
5.22%
25-30 years old (no) (0)
0%
30-40 years old (yes) (24)
5.01%
30-40 years old (no) (3)
0.63%
40+ years old (yes) (9)
1.88%
40+ years old (no) (7)
1.46%

Watched Threads

View All
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