Next permanent Scotland manager

[Granny Danger]

13 minutes ago, betting competition said:

Hopefully Kate Forbes performance last night has put a lot of people off voting for her.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

14 minutes ago, betting competition said:

Hopefully Kate Forbes performance last night has put a lot of people off voting for her.

Aye cos we’d all be better off with a lying incompetent ego maniac as FM? 

[LiviLion]

28 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Aye cos we’d all be better off with a lying incompetent ego maniac as FM? 

You say that as if it doesn't describe every politician

[Eddie Hitler]

1 hour ago, DC92 said:

I can see why Forbes held a theoretical appeal. A relatively fresh face with new ideas who might be able to build on existing support and reach new voters (Sturgeon even cited the need to broaden appeal as one of her reasons for stepping down). This idea is far preferable to a lower quality, less popular derivative of the current leadership churning out diminishing returns. 

Unfortunately for her she seems to have based her campaign in the alternate reality occupied by her Unionist commentator pals who've spent the best part of a decade writing weekly opinion pieces about how the SNP were finished, rather than the actual reality in which they've won every election by a huge margin and even increased their share of the vote in the last couple. It might make sense to trash your government's record like that when you're polling 23% and you aren't the finance minister, it doesn't when you're polling 43% and you are.

That's without getting to the gay marriage stuff and the clown running through a minefield impression that was the first week of her campaign. She's really gone out of her way to royally f**k the natural advantage she likely had here.  

I don't think "but we won all the elections!" is a good shortcut to judging how well a government has done, its record, or the degree to which it has improved things - at least not in isolation.

Over much the same timeframe as the SNP have been in office, i.e. saving the first three years, the Tories have won each General Election. While the margins may not have been quite as large, are we to assume (as a shortcut) that the Tories' record is good and they must be doing right...because they have won all the recent General Elections and have thus (whether we might like it or not - and I don't) been electorally successful?

I don't think that can be right, and the usual reasons put forward (not without justification, I don't think) for the Tories winning are disengaged voters in some cases who don't really know what they are voting for, and in other cases voters who have voted because they supported a single issue constitutional change (Brexit).  Accordingly, the Tories received votes for reasons other than some sparkling record in government,

I'd suggest myself that the Tories have governed badly, but they have been winning elections. 

It is eminently possible for the SNP to also have governed poorly, but to have been rewarded by disengaged voters who weren't really following their actual policy moves and those who voted for them because they support a single issue constitutional change (independence).

Now, it's up for debate (on a case by case basis) whether SNP initiatives in particular policy areas have been good and contribute to a good policy record or not but I believe this shortcut argument of "but they kept winning elections so they must have been good!" needs to be thrown in the bin because the Tories show us you can win elections despite being absolute horrors.

[renton]

16 minutes ago, Rod1877 said:

Did Kate Forbes really "trash the SNP's record in government"?  Or did she just suggest that Humza Yousaf's personal record in his cabinet roles, as distinct from the record of the government as a whole, has been less than stellar?  I'm not sure that it's how I'd have gone about it, but it doesn't seem too out of place in that particular form of debate when candidates are trying to demonstrate that they're more suited to the job than others.  It's not as if any of it hasn't been said before and it seems to me that she gave him a perfect opportunity to defend his record.  The fact that he was unable to do so with any kind of conviction was more telling.

Collective responsibility. She could have protested his appointment to any of those roles, resigned her cabinet position in protest. Instead, at every point she'll have defended him, his record and by extension the Government record in these areas.

And she didn't mean to give him that perfect opportunity. She tried to hit him on competence, and made herself look fundamentally unable to strategist how an opponent would respond, all the time happily trashing a record she has some responsibility for.

[Londonwell]

52 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Aye cos we’d all be better off with a lying incompetent ego maniac as FM? 

Tbf that describes Kate as much as it does Humza.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

31 minutes ago, Londonwell said:

Tbf that describes Kate as much as it does Humza.

Im not disputing that either btw. My msp just came out in support for HY, shes just lost my vote. 

[Rod1877]

48 minutes ago, renton said:

Collective responsibility. She could have protested his appointment to any of those roles, resigned her cabinet position in protest. Instead, at every point she'll have defended him, his record and by extension the Government record in these areas.

And she didn't mean to give him that perfect opportunity. She tried to hit him on competence, and made herself look fundamentally unable to strategist how an opponent would respond, all the time happily trashing a record she has some responsibility for.

If collective responsibility is the test, why is HY not being slated for "trashing" her record as finance secretary by accusing her of leaving £600m on the table during budget negotiations with the UK government?  Why did he not resign in protest?  Why, when he knew all along that she was not suitably "progressive" did he not protest her appointment or resign his post in protest?

[DC92]

6 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I don't think "but we won all the elections!" is a good shortcut to judging how well a government has done, its record, or the degree to which it has improved things - at least not in isolation.

Over much the same timeframe as the SNP have been in office, i.e. saving the first three years, the Tories have won each General Election. While the margins may not have been quite as large, are we to assume (as a shortcut) that the Tories' record is good and they must be doing right...because they have won all the recent General Elections and have thus (whether we might like it or not - and I don't) been electorally successful?

I don't think that can be right, and the usual reasons put forward (not without justification, I don't think) for the Tories winning are disengaged voters in some cases who don't really know what they are voting for, and in other cases voters who have voted because they supported a single issue constitutional change (Brexit).  Accordingly, the Tories received votes for reasons other than some sparkling record in government,

I'd suggest myself that the Tories have governed badly, but they have been winning elections. 

It is eminently possible for the SNP to also have governed poorly, but to have been rewarded by disengaged voters who weren't really following their actual policy moves and those who voted for them because they support a single issue constitutional change (independence).

Now, it's up for debate (on a case by case basis) whether SNP initiatives in particular policy areas have been good and contribute to a good policy record or not but I believe this shortcut argument of "but they kept winning elections so they must have been good!" needs to be thrown in the bin because the Tories show us you can win elections despite being absolute horrors.

But I'm not saying they've been a good government, I'm questioning the tactical wisdom of Forbes going hard on their record when 1) she is a senior member of that government 2) they are still polling strongly and 3) the election will be decided by party members who probably broadly quite like them.

As I said in my original post, I think there was plenty of scope in this contest for someone with fresh ideas to win over a stale and uninspiring continuity candidate. Forbes was well-positioned to play that role and was probably making some of the right noises about taking a fresh approach and winning new voters. But going on national TV to say she doesn't think one of her cabinet colleagues should keep his current job (aside from being artless) seems to needlessly undermine a government that's in a relatively strong polling position and probably alienates significant chunks of the parliamentary party and membership. A bold choice.

[Salt n Vinegar]

29 minutes ago, Rod1877 said:

If collective responsibility is the test, why is HY not being slated for "trashing" her record as finance secretary by accusing her of leaving £600m on the table during budget negotiations with the UK government?  Why did he not resign in protest?  Why, when he knew all along that she was not suitably "progressive" did he not protest her appointment or resign his post in protest?

IMO, there is a pretty clear distinction. 

If you are, effectively, the Government's "accountant", your views on equalities-related issues like equal marriage don't really impact much on carrying out your role.  Frankly, although a young Earth creationist might be a brilliant accountant, I wouldn't want one in charge of reviewing the country's science curriculum policy. 

The role of First Minister covers all matters of public policy, so the potential for faith-based considerations coming into play is much more evident.  If a politician looks at an issue of policy based on evidence, that's all I'd be looking for him or her to do.  If they choose to "add on" additional factors based on what are clearly minority, unprovable, non-evidence based considerations , then I think I can see problems in justifying to non-believers a resulting public policy position. 

Yousaf appears tobe able to say that he leaves his faith at the door. I've not yet seen or heard a response from Forbes that gives me the same opinion. 

Obviously I'm not a fan of religion and my preference is for it to be as far away from government as possible. In a country like the UK, where a particular sect of a particular religion is statutorily embedded in national and local government that's quite a problem. 

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Day 1 - Indy ref.

Day 2 - Get the UK to f**k.

 

Simple as.

[ICTChris]

Looking forward to working with convicted criminal Sheridan who must be one of the most discredited figures on Scottish politics. He puts on events in George Square with the ‘Scottish Resistance’ where they play Braveheart, that’s the level.

More seriously he and the figures around him have been vocal in spreading conspiracies and denial around Russian war crimes in the war in Ukraine. He’s an utter complete arsehole, a loser and a sex case weirdo.

[Elric]

1 hour ago, DC92 said:

 But going on national TV to say she doesn't think one of her cabinet colleagues should keep his current job (aside from being artless) seems to needlessly undermine a government that's in a relatively strong polling position and probably alienates significant chunks of the parliamentary party and membership. A bold choice.

At least she had the guts to say what everyone knows - everything he touches turn to shit.  In all honesty if you became PM why would you have him on your front bench unless you want a scapegoat?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

The UK government is pushing legislation and rhetoric not far off 1930’s Germany (i dont accept this as godwins law breach, it genuinely is), they are about to withdraw your rights to annual leave/other industrial rights, human rights and the corruption is off the fucking scale. But here we are with our chance to get out of it all and we’ve decided to put up 3 of the shittiest candidates to lead Scotland. 
f**k the SNP, theyve completely shat it. We now need an alternative. 

[Granny Danger]

24 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

f**k the SNP, theyve completely shat it. We now need an alternative. 

Why don’t you do something about it then?

Or do you mean other people should do something about it whilst you sit on the sidelines and sound off?

[The_Kincardine]

2 hours ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Day 1 - Indy ref.

Day 2 - Get the UK to f**k.

 

Simple as.

 The Indy ship has sailed ferry is rusting on the slipway without a captain.  And none of these three chancers could be trusted with a pedalo.

[alta-pete]

10 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Why don’t you do something about it then?

Or do you mean other people should do something about it whilst you sit on the sidelines and sound off?

^^^ sitting on the sidelines sounding off. 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

41 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

The UK government is pushing legislation and rhetoric not far off 1930’s Germany (i dont accept this as godwins law breach, it genuinely is), they are about to withdraw your rights to annual leave/other industrial rights, human rights and the corruption is off the fucking scale. But here we are with our chance to get out of it all and we’ve decided to put up 3 of the shittiest candidates to lead Scotland. 
f**k the SNP, theyve completely shat it. We now need an alternative. 

Hmmm, I seem to remember when Big Ange Postecoglou was being regarded as a fifth-choice fanny, and yet here we are.  Sometimes we don't always get the candidates we would like, and sometimes the ones we don't rise above our expectations.

On that basis I could maybe hold my nose very tightly and see if Forbes can stop the good ship SNP crashing itself fully onto the rocks of electoral doom.

But meantime, share your alternative with us.

[renton]

2 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Hmmm, I seem to remember when Big Ange Postecoglou was being regarded as a fifth-choice fanny, and yet here we are.  Sometimes we don't always get the candidates we would like, and sometimes the ones we don't rise above our expectations.

On that basis I could maybe hold my nose very tightly and see if Forbes can stop the good ship SNP crashing itself fully onto the rocks of electoral doom.

But meantime, share your alternative with us.

Not a chance.

[renton]

52 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

The UK government is pushing legislation and rhetoric not far off 1930’s Germany (i dont accept this as godwins law breach, it genuinely is), they are about to withdraw your rights to annual leave/other industrial rights, human rights and the corruption is off the fucking scale. But here we are with our chance to get out of it all and we’ve decided to put up 3 of the shittiest candidates to lead Scotland. 
f**k the SNP, theyve completely shat it. We now need an alternative. 

What exactly is our chance?