Jedi2

They have shown themselves, as was the case with Brexit, to be run by the mad ERG, who will now get their ammendments (presumably breaking International Law), just to allow Sunak to stand in front of a board saying Stop the Boats at the GE, this time next year.

Still reckon it will pass as well, but only to avoid a leadership contest. Astonishing to think that this sorry excuse for a govt will still limp on for another full year yet..but they will.

Of course their 'rebel' MPs will.just vote the Rwanda Bill through (or abstain) just to avoid yet another leadership contest.

Just how long does it take (and with so much public money spent) to know of there is sufficient evidence to go to court or not? Feels like this will be dragged out for another couple of years yet..its taking about as long as Man City's 115 charges.

Not often that you see a team whose budget is 30 plus times higher than the other being bullied like that 2nd half today, but when it does happen, gotta love it.

They can try a 'Stop the Boats' mantra if they like at the GE..difference is this time they will be out-gammoned by the gammon's gammon, Farage and co, over at Reform UK, with their 'net zero immigration' pitch which will have the blue rinse,Daily Mail brigade lining up to vote for them.

If however the Greens were to pull put of their agreement with the SNP (if Humza doesn't appeal the GRA decision say)...no majority for the govt, then how do they pass budgets etc?

The Reform number is an outlier at the moment...they would need over 15% to even win a seat anywhere. Not sure if they will stand aside for the Tories this time..but they will still damage the overall Tory vote.

Spot on. Doesn't matter whether your view on the GRA is for, against, or somewhere in the middle...you are right..leave it to WM. Due to the need for Green support though, Humza will use this as his hill to die on...doesn't matter if the issue is either not high up the list of many Scottish voters, or if its unpopular..as long as he can make capital from it (in his own head at least)..rather than focusing on you know, high energy bills, general cost of living, public services, trying not to bankrupt local Councils with a mad tax freeze, and trying to make his administration seem even half competent. But that's just the ravings of a thick unionist shrill ..carry on Humza.

Exactly. Once in 25 years is hardly indicative of a 'trend' in blocking legislation.

Given that most powers outwith defence, foreign policy, immigration and broadcasting are essentially devolved, there are very few issues on which a Section 35 order can actually be issued. Obviously in this case, due to conflict with the Equality Act which applies across the UK it came into force. That doesn't mean that WM now has carte blanche to interfere in say health, education, transport etc decisions taken at Holyrood. Humza will of course stoke it up to make it sound like it does mean this though, when in reality, it really doesn't.

Politician has wealthy backers and donors for his leadership campaign shocker..would be difficult to find many who don't have a similar background Should all donations have been declared? Absolutely. The fact that they weren't isn't good, but whether in Scotland, or at UK level, there are always 'levers' being pulled to get leaders elected.

The UK does have £1.6 trillion of 'non-financial assets' though, largely including government owned buildings/property. Liabilities in the form of govt debt is around £660 billion (about 25% of GDP). However, proper management of the assets, (which is a current Rachel Reeves proposal) building up essentially a sovereign wealth fund by using them to invest could (it is estimated) unlock borrowing of around £65 billion. Again, rather than chasing tax cuts with their borrowing a Labour govt is far more likely than the Tories to invest in public services, and despite the current public deficit figures and headlines, has the means to do so. Estimates also have Labour plans as investing 60% more in public services and infrastructure than the Tories have done over the course of the next Parliament

Indeed. However they have an increased public debt due to their very high rate of borrowing (which is the norm for a Tory govt), and such high borrowing to offset the madness of Brexit, and their own crashing of the economy under Truss (which was of course a wild attempt to cut taxes too far, too fast). Of course in their latest budget they are back to trying to cut taxes and reduce public spending again.

Freeze on public spending...where else so we hear that? Council Tax per chance?

There would appear to be 2 broad narratives applied to the Labour Party by its opponents, dependent on who the leader is: Either they are simply a 'joke' and unelectable when under clear left wing proposals such as Corbyn's or they are exactly the same as the Tories when it's Blair, Milliband or Starmer. With Blair in 97, same as now, we heard pre-election that public spending would be tight and indeed in line with Tory fiscal policies. Fast forward a couple of years and that period saw a significant increase in public spending particularly on the NHS, Education and Social Services. Fundamentally any Labour govt will always look to fund the public sector and will borrow to do so. The Tories, by contrast and instinct, will always look to cut taxes and reduce public spending as far as possible. Doesn't matter who the leader of both parties is, their govts will broadly follow that outlook. As far as 'career' politicians go, is Humza in it for his love of public service or is he maybe, just maybe, an opportunist as well?

More clear water between Tory and Labour proposals on immigration. With Cleverly targeting vulnerable people yet again by trying to penalise essential workers by raising the salary threshold for 'entry' from £26200 to £38700 and restricted access to NHS services by £624 to £1035, as well as banning health and care workers bringing family dependents to the UK, Labour, by contrast would have no such 'salary' requirement, but rather ensure that people doing the jobs are paid a fair and proper wage, would work to ensure that workers can be reunited with family members, focus on the criminal gangs exploiting people rather than the vulnerable themselves and strike a deal with the EU to take a fair quota of asylum seekers. Couldn't be more different in approach and that's without even taking the Rwanda madness into account.

Spot on.

Meanwhile Humza is content to cut police numbers further just so long as he can freeze Council Tax to do it.

Fair play

With a party like the SNP, which generally endorses and implements a right wing economic model, it was no surprise at the time to hear Salmond say that he 'didn't mind' Thatcher's economic policies. Nor was his consistent cosying up to Annabel Goldie in Holyrood to get his policies through with Tory support.

Was okay when Salmond as SNP FM at the time praised Thatchers economic policies though: https://www.scotsman.com/news/alex-salmond-scotland-didnt-mind-thatcher-economics-2465159

Ah, back to 'right wing Labour on migration' again, when their policy is to tackle criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people not actually attacking the vulnerable themselves, but rather looking to also ensure that asylum seekers in the UK have proper access to equal pay, rights, and the chance to be reunited with family members.That includes doing a deal with the EU to take a quota of asylum seekers to the UK. In other words some distance from send them to Rwanda where Sunak's own family have shady deals going in setting up detention centres

Don't recall teachers getting a 10% pay rise...somewhere closer to 7. To continue with a Council Tax freeze after increasing public sector wages, and at a time when Councils were expecting an 8-10% increase in CT, and then blame the forthcoming cuts to public services on WM cutting NI by 2% is again extraordinary politics even for the SNP

Current 1. Braverman 2. Rees Mogg 3. Sunak 4. Shapes 5. Stephen Flynn