Quote from: Iac Marscheir on Yesterday at 07:04:37 PMThese two parties won't be able to form a majority without some kind of reconciliation, which neither seems willing to do.

Not true. The URL stands ready to accept any invitation from the Progressive Alliance to renewed negotiations on a confidence/supply deal. We are willing to let "bygones be bygones" re: the recent unpleasant election campaign. However, the recent "Leader's Statement" from the PA seem to indicate that the same does not go for them.

Anyway, all this discussion seems pointless.

If I were an ordinary PA member, or even Txec Fortupt the Talossan who knows nothing about politics, I would read AD's document and think "... why are they voting? It's an obvious choice! They get confidence and supply for free from someone who's not even going to be politically active; or they do a deal with these URL guys who are apparently the nastiest pieces of work on the planet. Door Number 1, Alex!"

I can't imagine anyone would read that and not vote for the Zero Strings Attached Deal with the absolute monarchist theocrat. AD gives absolutely no reason in the document why a deal with the URL would be desirable in any way.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 12, 2025, 01:23:00 PMa lot of our voters, who specifically mentioned some of the URL mailers that motivated them to vote Prog.

I'd be interested to hear from those people. I can understand that the "tone" of the URL mailers might have struck some as overwrought, but the content - that the PA preferred to make an alliance with absolute monarchists, and thus in a very real and practical sense didn't value democracy - had the virtue of being true. That came back to bite you.

It also confirms what I've been saying for ages about how the PA is not held together by political principle, but by an "ingroup/outgroup" distinction. Anyone can join the ingroup if they agree not to criticise anyone else in the ingroup. And this characterisation is something you seem to be really upset by. Equally so as alleged "lies" and "aggression". I'm not sure why, but I hope you accept that this is a good faith political characterisation which makes no imputation of bad character.

In any case, I'm not sure what led you to make that "Leader's Post" in public - an attempt to "negotiate by press release"? a response to internal pressures? - but you have to remember that there are two sides here to the negotiation and it didn't help build good faith on our side.

Compare and contrast:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 12, 2025, 09:29:21 AMThe URL repeatedly and knowingly lied about our flagship Public Process Act,

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu, presumably, in a PA mailer, 20th OctoberWe're only a few days away from the end of the voting for the Clark, and we're very close to the current URL government killing The Public Process Act.  Your Talossan government is trying to keep the power to secretly control who even gets to apply to immigrate!

(emphasis added)

The latter outright lie won a plurality of votes for the PA.  Unfortunately, when we chose not to "hit back", these lies were broadcast to the broad masses by mailer, so that didn't work. Here's another one:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 12, 2025, 09:29:21 AMOne of the URL leaders, our current Seneschal, took a phrase out of context from a private conversation in order to lie about its meaning.  She was messaging with a past ally to scold him for his decision to support the Progressive Alliance, and she demanded that he denounce me publicly.  He said in dismissal of such a demand, "we're trying to win an election here." 

Since people get upset when I quote them, let's quote what I actually said to provoke this response:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on November 05, 2025, 06:08:46 PMI mean, AD's latest post is just what I mean. He is outright lying about what Mic'haglh has said to him to try to score a political point. And you're going along with it?

In what way is this a "demand to denounce [AD] publicly" as opposed to, say, an objection to someone telling outright lies? It is of course possible that the Baron hasn't actually seen the message, in which case he's not lying, but is instead being lied to. So it appears to be lies all round up in this joint.

A few other options have been raised as part of a broader Democracy Agenda. Here are some I'd like to throw in the pot:

• Water down the Royal veto. You guys know that I love His Maj, despite my republicanism, and I trust him to use his veto wisely. On principle, though, I still don't think it should exist. If I had my way, I'd reduce the Royal veto to the discretion to refer a bill to the CpI for an opinion on its Organicity, for ordinary legislation; and nothing for OrgLaw amendments (in the latter case, the people's vote in referendum should be the only veto).
• Repeal of Organic Law XII.4: "Proposed changes to this Organic Law that affect the representation of a province in the Senäts, or of the territory or equal sovereignty of a province, shall not take effect unless approved by a majority of participating voters in that province." There is already a provision that messing with the Senäts requires a 2/3 majority in the Senäts. This provision requires near-total unanimity in the whole nation to make any changes to the provincial basis of Senäts election. That's more than it would require to fully depower that body. Anti-democracy in action, and unjustifiable on its merits. At least fold this provision into XII.1 so the threshold is the same. OR: perhaps you could just put "the equal representation"?

Good to know :D

First order of business would be to elect a Capitán (chair/leader of the Praisidieu)

... and thankfully, there was still time. It took until the IDT leader revealed himself as an admirer of actual antisemitic, misogynist fascist Nick Fuentes.

Three cheers to the Progressive Alliance for understanding their mistake and rectifying it. Rectifying errors is the true test of character. There are degrees of rectification, however. First step: reverse the mistake. Second step: work out why the mistake happened, so it won't happen again.

My analysis is that this mistake follows on from what the URL has identified as the Progressive Alliance's major political weakness - a determination to have a political "tent" so big that absolutely everyone can get inside (as long as they "play nice"). Well, in the last few days, Talossa's big tent has made for quite a circus.

To quote once more from my speech to the founding Convention of the URL, the PA is:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on July 29, 2025, 05:03:04 PMnot held together by shared politics, but by friendships, by its internal culture. In a party which is a "social club" writ large, it's not a surprise that the party should have no distinctive politics of its own...

And an "apolitical party" produces an "apolitical politics" for Talossa. Confused? What I mean is: a politics that essentially holds that Talossa should not have politics. That debate about different visions of Talossa's future, its raison d'être (sorry, raziun d'estar), its institutional nature, is divisive and unseemly - even that it "drives away prospectives" - and that elections should reduce partly to deciding a team of administrators for the next six months, and partly to one of those funny things that Talossans do to be quirky.

Until it was almost too late, Cxhn. Maltezos' reactionary politics were seen by the PA leadership as a funny little quirk; a teenager being edgy. Max successfully "hid his power level", as they put it, until he was an actual Cabinet minister-designate. This should cause us all pause. But let's remember how, just a few days ago, PA leaders responded to the URL saying that bringing this guy into the Government was a bad move:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 08, 2025, 05:30:17 AMIt's not a good idea to try to scare people by lying about your political opponents, since it creates a lot of animosity and scares people.  And also we just saw how it doesn't work. 

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on December 08, 2025, 08:24:45 AMThe URL leadership's penchant for personal attacks and hyperbole is the very reason you lost this election, but by all means double down on your vindictive approach.

Ironic, given that the PA's sky-is-falling emails about the Public Process Act are probably what won them the election. Clearly "scare people by lying about your opponents... personal attacks and hyperbole" does work.

But: on the subject of Monarchist Max, the URL called it as we saw it, and we called it right. The PA almost locked themselves into a deal with an actual groyper, in preference to the party which they admit is not far from them politically, but whom they seem to personally resent.

I hope that the lesson the PA will draw from this is: politics matter. Principles matter. Building a governing majority on a political program is preferable to building one based on "whoever comes into the big tent and salutes is one of us".

Once again: three cheers to the Progressive Alliance for understanding their mistake and rectifying it.

I understand that macronational politics shouldn't impinge on Talossa, but Max has made the mistake of bringing his politics into Talossa with that little comment. These are politics that I think a supermajority of us would find obscene. Fuentes is persona non grata even by the standards of US reactionaries. I mean, look at this miéida from today.

I would expect to get dragged if, for example, as Seneschal I were to casually mention that Luigi Mangione did nothing wrong*. People would have the right to question whether I should be in a position of authority. Luckily, Max seems to have solved the problem for us, but I'd like conformation from the Progressive Alliance that they'll be picking a new Minster of Culture. This could be the basis for re-opening confidence/supply negotiations with the URL.

* I do not actually think Mangione did nothing wrong, this is just an example.

This may be off-topic, but who called you "the Talossan Nick Fuentes"? I have issues with your politics but you've never expressed antisemitism, which is the defining politics of Catboy-Fancier Fuentes

... for the Progressive Alliance to come to their senses;

drop the "coalition" deal which would bring anti-democratic forces into the Government of the country;

and return to negotiating confidence/supply deals with both the URL and the IDT.

This blunder which has crippled the new Seneschalsqåb before it has even started is reversible.

I should note that I didn't say that the Baron personally opposed codification; but his party, the RUMP, did.

For those keeping track: here is the thread where I announce (on behalf of the then-Opposition parties) the programme of codification, a full year before the post linked above; and where Baron Hooligan (on behalf of the ruling RUMP party) comes in to argue against it.

Locking the thread now. We can continue either the historical discussion or the political debate elsewhere.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 08, 2025, 05:48:03 AMThe old system of laws was just a crazy hodgepodge of dozens of individual things that only a few people knew about, until my project of coming up with el Lexhatx.

...

Codification of Talossan law was a platform of the Talossan Republicans, led by me. Your party, the RUMP, opposed it for a long time. Eventually, after you'd lost the political argument, you (personally) did most of the work putting El Lexhatx together. And you deserve recognition for that. But it was a Republican idea.

When you're rattled, Alex, you start telling open lies, that anyone who looks it up on OldWitt can check.

BTW, the angry ranting and psychological projection ("no it is YOU who are angrily ranting!!!") from the Progs are getting out of control, so this thread is close to being closed down. No doubt we'll continue the discussion elsewhere.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on December 08, 2025, 08:49:08 AMSetting aside the deeply unprofessional and needlessly aggressive tone

Looks like "hard-charging aggression and creativity with the truth" is fine when they do it.

That's the issue here, isn't it? We don't think the PA believe in absolute monarchy. We think the PA brought someone who doesn't believe in democracy into government because they don't believe in anything. Except that their team should be in power - and our team shouldn't.

The Progs have screwed the pooch royally. A confidence/supply deal with Monarchist Max would have raised grumbles but not scared people. Why?

My theory is this: the Baron is a reasonable man and was prepared to discuss URL proposals. But the Prog caucus is held together by no principles, but one: the URL are bad guys. They preferred to compromise on Talossan democracy than to make an agreement with the "defeated" URL. They have started their term in government by "neglecting their responsibilities (to democracy) because of personal animosities."

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 08, 2025, 05:30:17 AMPlease be aware that Max has agreed to a coalition agreement in which he is only going to work on promoting our language, and anything else requires approval from me.  Talossa will not be turning into a theocratic autocracy on my watch, don't worry.

"Please be aware that Comrade Stalin has agreed to a coalition agreement in which he is only going to work on ethnic minority issues, and anything else requires approval from me."

I suppose that someone who's only even lived in a liberal democracy doesn't understand how people who come from a country where they're a real threat would react to the politics of reactionary Traditionalism.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 08, 2025, 05:30:17 AMWe went through a whole campaign of this, and the voters just rejected it in a very clear voice.  It's not a good idea to try to scare people by lying about your political opponents, since it creates a lot of animosity and scares people.  And also we just saw how it doesn't work. 

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 11:34:57 PMI think you might have made a mistake here.  Your opening position didn't ask for "one or more URL members to senior non-cabinet posts," but rather five of the eleven posts in the Cabinet.  You didn't mention anything about investigations, either.  Whoops!

You're cracking out the sarcasm, Baron. Are you rattled? You seem rattled.

Your account of negotiations is false. In a full coalition with proportional representation, 5 out of 11 seats would be a fair representation of the strength of the two partners. But you made it clear early on that wasn't a goer, so negotiations shifted to a confidence/supply deal, our position on which Mic'haglh detailed above.

I think you need to realise that you've made a real blunder here; refusing to work with a party that you admit are reasonably close to yours, in favour of a party which is actually scaring a lot of Talossans. Barclamïu is from Poland, so he knows from democratic backsliding.

I've been asked whether it's right to delete your post, but as long as you remain civil I don't see the need. As I say elsewhere, given the Senäts deadlock we are happy to negotiate on legislation, but we can't negotiate on Government policy with a government which is not 100% committed to democracy.

I approve, of course, but why isn't he making the application himself?

Quote from: King Txec on December 07, 2025, 07:45:12 PMI don't know, but it seems like someone should ask the actual, reigning king, his thoughts on his role in Talossa. Just an idea.

-Txec R

Yeah; I know Mximo is anxious about the idea of being a "rebel" but you've got to ask what happens if the constitutional King of Talossa has no interest in being anything other than a constitutional King. Is their legitimacy in question under Traditionalist ideology?

Yes - up to, as the existing legislation provides, 7.5% of the Cosa rounded up - i.e. 2 extra seats in total. Enough to make thing spicy lol

Excellent work.

This proposal forms the first step in laying out the URL's broader Democracy Agenda, in response to a Government who's happier to include absolute monarchists than it is to cooperate with a much larger democratic party. It is vital for political health that it be possible to lose elections.

This from my address to the Party Convention some months ago, referring to the Progressive Alliance:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on July 29, 2025, 05:03:04 PMI realised that previously I referred to this party as "conservative". I did so on the basis that, whatever changes are suggested to Talossan institutions or structure, they're agin' it. But that's not actually the right word. The right word is apolitical.

This party is, as I see it, not a political party in the way our new URL is. They are not held together by shared politics, but by friendships, by its internal culture. In a party which is a "social club" writ large, it's not a surprise that the party should have no distinctive politics of its own - or rather, that its politics should "default" to the preferences of whoever its most confident member is.

And an "apolitical party" produces an "apolitical politics" for Talossa. Confused? What I mean is: a politics that essentially holds that Talossa should not have politics. That debate about different visions of Talossa's future, its raison d'être (sorry, raziun d'estar), its institutional nature, is divisive and unseemly - even that it "drives away prospectives" - and that elections should reduce partly to deciding a team of administrators for the next six months, and partly to one of those funny things that Talossans do to be quirky.

The spectacle of a "progressive" party forming a coalition with an absolute monarchist party has confirmed my analysis above. Smoothing over any possible political differences to build the broadest possible consensus - what I refer to as "anti-politics" - leads to the same place as absolute monarchy, i.e. principled opposition and ideological disagreement are delegitimised.