The Very Meh Humza Yousaf Thread.

[Michael W]

A confidence vote is only a good idea if you have a decent prospect of winning it. Otherwise you look daft. 

Sometimes it's best just to let the opponent wallow in the fallout for a while. 

Edited April 25 by Michael W

[KingRocketman II]

Don't have very strong views on this but notable that the Scottish Greens do seem to effortlessly trigger certain folks. Amusing to see....

[lichtgilphead]

33 minutes ago, Lex said:

Eh? There’s 65 MSP’s between the Greens, Lib, Labour and Lib Dem’s, not 64? There’s 129 MSP’s, 64 votes is not enough.

I’m tempted for the bet now because you’ve obviously miscounted before you offered it, but I don’t know what the Greens will do, and certainly wouldn’t bet on weasel Harvie having the backbone to bring down the SNP government. 
He’ll decide though, cause the Greens will vote as a block one way or another.

I've not miscounted. As explained above, the presiding officer only votes in the event of a tie, and normally votes to keep the status quo, irrespective of her party affiliation.

64 each will mean that DRoss'sVONC will fall.

 

[renton]

3 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

I've not miscounted. As explained above, the presiding officer only votes in the event of a tie, and normally votes to keep the status quo, irrespective of her party affiliation.

64 each will mean that DRoss'sVONC will fall.

 

Having said that, the SNP haven't had much luck with parliamentary officers holding to convention of late....

[craigkillie]

25 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Sarwar openly saying "we need an election" rather than simply saying Yousaf needs to go, which if he's being serious rather than just ramping the pressure up through rhetoric does seem a gamble - an election that makes them the largest party now can backfire on them long term.

Unless the thought process is simply to force Yousaf out without leading to an election with the SNP remaining in power, then you have enough time for leadership in general and Westminster election losses to taint Forbes or whoever else takes over as FM (which even with the Greens against could happen with support from Regan or abstention from Lib Dems). Possibly they'd rather that than Forbes or another coming in after Yousaf takes the fall for losses at Westminster with the SNP getting a new leader bounce at the same time as Labour's popularity potentially falls due to being the UK government.

Would the Scottish Parliament rules not mean that if we had an election now there would still be another in 2026?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

15 minutes ago, KingRocketman II said:

Don't have very strong views on this but notable that the Scottish Greens do seem to effortlessly trigger certain folks. Amusing to see....

Because they are Malthusian fruitlooops.

[betting competition]

If this Vote of No Confidence succeeds, the Tories are counting on the SNP appointing a new leader within 28 days. If not, and there's an extraordinary election, both the SNP and the Tories will undoubtedly suffer significant setbacks.

Edited April 25 by betting competition

[Scary Bear]

I’m glad Humza has punted the Greens.

The Greens used to be the cuddly List voting choice of many SNP voters. I can see that changing after seeing their brief time in power.

[GTG_03]

I'm not really sure how to feel about all this. Thought that greens press conference was fairly childish so it's probably good that they've been punted.

Maybe an election is just what's needed, I feel like Scottish politics could do with a reset. Could be a good thing in the long run for indy supporters if labour take power in Westminster and Holyrood. It won't be long before they're burying their snouts in the trough and rowing back on the promises made, reminding people of the entitled, self serving wanks they really are.

It'll be an interesting few days anyway.

 

[alta-pete]

It may yet be proven the work of some high level 4D chess by Humza. Knowing the SNP are on the slide those 8 Green list seats might become very valuable if Labour secure their purported surge.

[Dunning1874]

17 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Would the Scottish Parliament rules not mean that if we had an election now there would still be another in 2026?

Yes, so if Labour get themselves an election now and become the largest party then form a minority government, they could end up having a worse time of it in 2026 than they would by biding their time in opposition, and end up not being the largest party again after less than two years in power.

[Clangers]

1 hour ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

Unsure if there’s a more irritating trio in world politics than the ‘co-leaders’ and that ginger c**t. Good riddance.

The co-leaders always for some reason reminded me of Chuck & Wendy Rhoades from Billions, can’t put my finger on why exactly 

[Dan Steele]

With the Greens having gone public about their vote to end power-sharing and having seen their conference after being punted, is there not an argument that Yousaf is showing strong leadership? The opposition call of no-confidence in a "weak" Yousaf couldn't just be shallow politics and opportunism, could it?

[ICTChris]

9 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

It may yet be proven the work of some high level 4D chess by Humza. Knowing the SNP are on the slide those 8 Green list seats might become very valuable if Labour secure their purported surge.

It seems more like 1D chess.  Going by his letter to Slater and Harvie, Yousaf thought that this would all be very business-like, that the Greens would understand that he was acting prior to their membership ending the Bute House Agreement anyway and that they could move back to relying on them helping an SNP minority government.  Instead, the Greens have blown up, Lorna Slater accusing the SNP of a culture war and backing down to the most reactionary people in the country (SNP backbenchers?), Patrick Harvie retweeting statements saying that the SNP have sold out to big donor money (don't think the SNP have many big donors, maybe Harvie means Mr Soutar). 

I posted earlier in this thread, in true Nostradamus style, that the Bute House Agreement was popular with SNP activists.  The only polling I ever saw about it was positive but in the last couple of days the whole thing has crumbled, it all seems to have been built on sand.  I doubt there will be any alliance between the SNP and the Greens again unless there's a big push back.  What was the trigger for all of this?  The climate targets?

[MazzyStar]

[itzdrk]

6 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

It seems more like 1D chess.  Going by his letter to Slater and Harvie, Yousaf thought that this would all be very business-like, that the Greens would understand that he was acting prior to their membership ending the Bute House Agreement anyway and that they could move back to relying on them helping an SNP minority government.  Instead, the Greens have blown up, Lorna Slater accusing the SNP of a culture war and backing down to the most reactionary people in the country (SNP backbenchers?), Patrick Harvie retweeting statements saying that the SNP have sold out to big donor money (don't think the SNP have many big donors, maybe Harvie means Mr Soutar). 

I posted earlier in this thread, in true Nostradamus style, that the Bute House Agreement was popular with SNP activists.  The only polling I ever saw about it was positive but in the last couple of days the whole thing has crumbled, it all seems to have been built on sand.  I doubt there will be any alliance between the SNP and the Greens again unless there's a big push back.  What was the trigger for all of this?  The climate targets?

Yes

[houston_bud]

7 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

What was the trigger for all of this?  The climate targets?

My guess is that many in the Greens can see that Yousaf isn't that popular and they wanted an out. If he'd been riding high in the polls they'd have swallowed the climate targets being ditched.

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I posted earlier in this thread, in true Nostradamus style, that the Bute House Agreement was popular with SNP activists.  The only polling I ever saw about it was positive but in the last couple of days the whole thing has crumbled, it all seems to have been built on sand. 

Party activists under most circumstances - when polled - will support the policy that puts their party in power, or has been signed off by its leadership. That's a vote of confidence in their own party. That doesn't make the actual content or idea of the Bute House popular - I doubt anybody will have wean names or tattoos they need to change now it has come to an end. 

Your previous point overlooks the reality that Harvie/Slater put their neck on the line to defend their cushy ministerial posts and are the undoubted, massive losers of the week's events. That they are blowing smoke is only to be expected to appease their own base of activists. 

Any government that relies on the support of proven clowns like Slater and Greer deserves blown up. 

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Yes

Presumably the tears and snotters all over Lorna's original work prevented the utter word salad in that third paragraph from being spotted and professionally redrafted. 

Student union level diddies. 

[Granny Danger]

56 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Because they are Malthusian fruitlooops.

Yeah, they even believe in global warming…