M577 – Contempt of Parliament Motion 2020 Watch

This discussion is closed.
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by The Mogg)
Oui oui,
I'm probably abstaining on this motion on the grounds I have no idea why it has to exist, and I've now become apathetic to the whole airport malarky. If I could actually write the bill then I would give it a shot but my bill making skills are a crime against legislation everywhere :lol:
PRSOM. Your legislation will only improve with practice!
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by The Mogg)
Oui oui,
I'm probably abstaining on this motion on the grounds I have no idea why it has to exist, and I've now become apathetic to the whole airport malarky. If I could actually write the bill then I would give it a shot but my bill making skills are a crime against legislation everywhere :lol:
I'd suggest actually writing the privatisation bill would a) allow us to have a proper debate on the merits or otherwise of privatisation and b) stand a good chance of actually passing. (I'd likely oppose the bill but I doubt you'd see a unanimous government vote against it.)
0
Bailey14
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I'd suggest actually writing the privatisation bill would a) allow us to have a proper debate on the merits or otherwise of privatisation and b) stand a good chance of actually passing. (I'd likely oppose the bill but I doubt you'd see a unanimous government vote against it.)
I echo the comments of my Rt. Hon. friend.
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Well well well, what do we have here.

I think this issue is getting frankly overblown and out of hand. The authors of this motion (or anyone else for that matter) should at this point either just write a bill for the House to vote on, or go for a MoNC if they feel this issue is enough for a success in that respect.
Why should the opposition respond to motions on behalf of HM Government?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
Why should the opposition respond to motions on behalf of HM Government?
HM Government is not bound to respond to motions if you remember.
2
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
HM Government is not bound to respond to motions if you remember.
It's amazing how nobody in support of this motion seems willing to state whether they believe the same standards should be held IRL, probably because they know that would lead to having to demand the resignation of Johnson
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It really doesn't though, unless the MonC were to be an extension of this motion
If you say so.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by The Mogg)
Oui oui,
I'm probably abstaining on this motion on the grounds I have no idea why it has to exist, and I've now become apathetic to the whole airport malarky. If I could actually write the bill then I would give it a shot but my bill making skills are a crime against legislation everywhere :lol:
I encourage you to try even if the bill itself is not good or well formatted that's why we have 2nd and 3rd reading to improve it.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by Mr T 999)
I encourage you to try even if the bill itself is not good or well formatted that's why we have 2nd and 3rd reading to improve it.
Hear hear!
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by SankaraInBloom)
Why should the opposition respond to motions on behalf of HM Government?
The opposition shouldn't be writing motions where they could quite easily submit a bill to do things themselves. I've been in this House for a long time now and we have a long tradition of each party putting forward bills to enact changes it wants to enact, rather than expecting everything to go through the government.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
If you say so.
You actually believe a vote on a petty motion is indicative of voting intentions of a monc that is completely unrelated to such petty activities?
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You actually believe a vote on a petty motion is indicative of voting intentions of a monc that is completely unrelated to such petty activities?
I believe it would be indicative of potential support for a MoNC with this partly as the reasoning.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
I believe it would be indicative of potential support for a MoNC with this partly as the reasoning.
I suppose it would be if this motion is to represent what is deemed monc worthy, although should the government choose to mess with Connor and support this motion it wouldn't be.

If you're going to monc the government any time soon be man enough to do so instead of turning people off, between the petition and motion this line of argument for a monc is dead, not that it was ever alive to begin with given the non-binding nature of motions
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I suppose it would be if this motion is to represent what is deemed monc worthy, although should the government choose to mess with Connor and support this motion it wouldn't be.

If you're going to monc the government any time soon be man enough to do so instead of turning people off, between the petition and motion this line of argument for a monc is dead, not that it was ever alive to begin with given the non-binding nature of motions
If you believe it was never alive then this didn't turn people off.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
If you believe it was never alive then this didn't turn people off.
If you believe the only grounds to monc the government is their refusal to do something they are not required to do they can sleep easy; I believe this line of argument was never alive for a monc, I also believe the amount this has been pushed has harmed the prospects of a successful monc irrespective of whether this is included.

And before you say the Government's numbers make them monc-proof that is only theoretically so, they aren't practically so given whipping difficulty on the government's part and the possibility of government rebels in the face on anonymity
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 weeks ago
#96
So what was that about P100 passing?
0
quirky editor
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 weeks ago
#97
As the petition did not pass, would the right honourable gentleman Connor27 agree that the right course of action is to withdraw this motion?
2
Bailey14
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 weeks ago
#98
Following the defeat of the Cardiff Airport Petition, I would call on the proposers of this motion to withdraw it and not send it to division.

If the house divides on the matter I would call on members to reject this motion.
3
BosslyGaming
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 weeks ago
#99
This motion was baseless before, the petition result proves that.
2
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 weeks ago
#100
I must say, despite how often. It happens connor being wrong is amazing. It’s a shame that I couldn’t place a bet on it at the bookies.
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed