Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

From the sounds of it, the issue they ran into was:
- They passed a law legally binding them to achieve a climate target by 2030.
- They were not on track to meet that target.

So the 'fix' they came up with was to repeal that law, which was something that had to go through Scottish Parliament. Now, the Green party are never going to vote for repealing a climate target, and the agreement the SNP had with the Greens basically was their support in exchange for things like climate targets so...

The other choice (besides doing stuff to meet the targets) was probably to try and delay-delay-delay-lalalalala-we-can't-hear-you until the Election and then hope they either got a solid majority and could just repeal it or be wiped out and hey not their issue anymore. But that's not until 2026 so probably too far away to lalalala.

[hector13]

I would hope it’s pressure from within the party that basically forced his hand, because otherwise it’s a completely inexplicable move. Quite a few of the old guard have been calling for a withdrawal from the agreement.

Though I’m not sure if that’s better, party members unable to look beyond their own nonsense to alienate another independence supporting party than just the current leader being incredibly short-sighted.

[Starver]

...I thought it'd take longer than this/be a more convoluted failure, but...

I think the SNP might be more damaged by the reduced environmental targets, or at least the pressure will sit more heavily upon their Green coallition partners.

...not far off, as far as predictions go. (As far as my predictions go, anyway.)


Then there's Wales backing down on the 20MPHs, too.

[hector13]

...I thought it'd take longer than this/be a more convoluted failure, but...

I think the SNP might be more damaged by the reduced environmental targets, or at least the pressure will sit more heavily upon their Green coallition partners.

...not far off, as far as predictions go. (As far as my predictions go, anyway.)


Then there's Wales backing down on the 20MPHs, too.

I don’t even know why he decided to jump out of this particular window. There was going to be a vote among Green Party members which is at least four weeks away, and Patrick Harvie had said he would resign from the party if they voted to leave the coalition.

There was no reason to jump the gun this soon over that.

[Great Order]

Today in "The Conservative Party hates the separation of powers":

Section 1 subsection 6. "For the purposes of this Act, “international law” includes— (a)the Human Rights Convention, (b)the Refugee Convention, (c)the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, (d)the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984, (e)the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings done at Warsaw on 16 May 2005, (f)customary international law, and (g)any other international law, or convention or rule of international law, whatsoever, including any order, judgment, decision or measure of the European Court of Human Rights."

Section 2 subsection 1. "Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country."

Section 3 subsection 1. "The provisions of this Act apply notwithstanding the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, which are disapplied as follows."

Section 5 subsections 1 and 2. "(1) This section applies where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure in proceedings relating to the intended removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda under, or purportedly under, a provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts. (2)It is for a Minister of the Crown (and only a Minister of the Crown) to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure."

So, we can ignore the ECHR and the government can now decide what is factual and what isn't. As someone pointed out, this theoretically means that should Rwanda have a natural disaster, disease outbreak, or be destabilised in some manner the government cannot put out travel advisories without the consent of parliament. It also means that the courts can't decide the facts of the law, which has previously been the case, because the government's decided that Rwanda is safe so therefore it is, facts and reality be damned.

Granted, ignoring the ECHR isn't exactly unique to us but given the Tories I'm definitely displeased with it.

[Starver]

Well, Yousaf has stepped down. Ambivalent about that, myself, as he was flawed (no more than many politicians/parties!) but still not actually unreasonable in various different ways. But given some of the people he'd have needed to court favour with to continue (that hopefully any successor can dodge, though that depends upon many things), it might even be the best way forward for him.

The tricky question of elections comes up. Internal, local and then maybe even general (UK definitely eventially, Scottish maybe depending upon how the power shuffles might force/allow the opportunity).

[hector13]

He said he underestimated the hurt he caused the Greens by leaving the power-sharing deal.

Maybe it wasn’t nefarious forces within the party and he really is just an idiot.

Early front-runners for leadership are John Swinney and Kate Forbes. I’d prefer the former, but that’s more because I don’t like the latter.

[Great Order]

Humza's entire time in charge could be described as stumbling from one idiocy to the next. Guy wasn't cut out for politics it seems.

[Starver]

As far as I'm concerned, a number of his problems resulted from the knock-on effects of having to deal with the messes he was left with dealing with. Silk purses from sows ears, etc. Hard to play a good game when given a bad hand, only so far you can go by trying to bluff.

Oh, and that he didn't really have a name that was fish-related, like I've said before. On that count, I suppose I'm going to have to just support John Swi(m)ey, from the current likely candidates, as the best of a badly-named lot!

[Starver]

Well, he doesn't always know to follow the very rules that he made happen...

[Great Order]

Could be like the bus thingymajig? Make something happen so it gets in the news and beats out the even worse thing? In this case, look up bojo voting ID and rather than getting a thing about how he implemented it, you get a thing about how he was turned away. Not a good thing, but it's wiping the idea that it's his fault.

He could also be an idiot, I've maintained he's an idiot thinking he's a smart man pretending to be an idiot. What he's always been good at is PR.