Help me out here, guys: what's the abusive husband tactic where he yells at you that you've got to change your ways, but doesn't tell you *what* he wants you to do, because you should be able to guess?

People were permitted to change their votes the way it was set up. So while things were obviously trending one way, there was ample opportunity for people to demonstrate grace and change minds.

That did not happen.

The pieces never came together in my head until now, but they have now.

The Progressive Alliance has no political principles, and is actively allergic to them. They're a clique, a fraternity, a "No Miestras Club" (I suppose they can have one, as the saying goes).

Baron Alexandreu Davinescu cannot argue politically. His "political attacks" are always accusations of wrongdoing, corruption and personal fault. And conversely, he cannot interpret a critique of political principle except as an impermissible, personal attack.

Because the Progressive Alliance lacks political principle they cannot imagine standing on political principle. They cannot understand why people would act in elections in any way other than to make the maximum number of people like you. Tell them what they want to hear. Smarm all over them. Make vague positive noises in a "sunny tone". They can't understand that the purpose of political debate is, in some cases, about drawing lines, about making clarifications. We don't want to make enemies, but the goal of the URL is not to make friends, but to promote the politics of Talossan democracy.

Baron Davinescu cannot argue with the above analysis so he just has to yell vaguely that it's offensive and unacceptable. Therefore, we will keep making it.

At the time of my statement above, a majority of the Progressive membership had already voted unanimously not to pursue negotiations with the URL.  I have already addressed some of the concerns: many members felt like it would be hard to work with individuals who were directly insulting us and some of our members, and who had no qualms about lying.  It seemed as though clearing the air about such matters might open up more possibilities -- perhaps with the end of the election, there might be space for self-reflection.  Maybe if we were open about our concerns, in a way we'd avoided during the campaign, things might shift enough that our members would have two valid choices.

Unfortunately, during this period, the URL leader told us we were just a "political clique" and a group of "clowns," among various other insults.  She even reposted at length a restatement of something she said had "personally offended" me.  Why, she wondered, didn't we just "riposte in kind?"  Where were our mocking memes and angry denunciations?

At this point, it should be crystal clear that we don't do that kind of politics.  We don't make personal attacks on other parties as a whole, don't apply denigrating names or mocking labels, and don't allege broader allegations against the legitimacy of other parties.  Our criticisms are specific and backed by evidence, not just cruel rhetoric.  That kind of negative campaigning might be effective in some quarters, but it makes Talossa less fun and drives people away.  We think it's better for everyone if we continue to focus on reform and good governance, and stay out of the mud.

With the vote concluded, it will surprise no one that Progressives chose to engage in a confidence-and-supply agreement with the IDT.  We are also in the final stages of formalizing an similar agreement with the Independent Greens, although no vote has yet been taken on that.

Our letter of majority is nearly ready, and we expect to be in a position to form a Government within a couple of days.

I agree with you, Foxmouth.  No one may join a constituent group within the Coletx without first becoming a member.  Shall we petition His Majesty for your admittance, S:reu Cabischabuerg?

-SVA

The Union of Free Reformists assigns the following seats:

Mic'haglh Autófil: 20 seats
Miestră Schivă: 20 seats
Sir Marcel Tafial: 20 seats
Sir Marti-Pair Furxheir: 3 seats
Iac Moritzescu: 3 seats

As I had mentioned in our PMs a bit ago -- the Squirrel Viceroy may wish to correct me on this, but I was under the impression that the first step to joining the RAV would be to join the College, no?

- Foxmouth

I'm sure you'll understand that little parties are not the problem. The problem is where you have a big party with many votes, but it's not actually a "party" as such but one guy who owns the "brand" and interprets the whole thing as a vote for him personally. Such a party would only hand out seats if it had to, to compliant nobodies whose job was just to shut up and do what they're told.

I was going to go on that that would be antidemocratic, but then you'd like that :D

Solămint das canziuns miglhors monarc'histans dal mundeu.

Clichetz aicì.

- MM