Our criticisms have been mild and far between, and focused on specific issues.  We have never denigrated the URL as a broad group with mocking names or memes, and instead have gone out of our way to highlight our belief that the URL was also a legitimate choice run by decent people.  We continue to think that's the case.  We wish there was mutual respect along those same lines, but we can't control your words or actions -- only our own.

I suspect that the contrast between our stances has been a part of Progressive success.

Here's another one, which I just brought up in another thread: narrow down or eliminate the ability of parties to allocate seats off-list.

1) Requiring bigger party lists means that parties have to be "real parties", collectives based around a platform, not a figurehead nominating expendable pawns. (Admittedly, the latter is Talossan tradition.)

2) There's something gross and sneaky about how a party can give seats, post-election, to someone whose presence on their list would have sunk their chances in the election.

There's also a vague idea about adding requirements for parties to choose their lists in a democratic and open fashion, rather than the leader doling them out at whim, but I'm not sure how we'd work that.

Based on the haranguing posts from the URL co-leader to the PA one concludes that perhaps the big party arrangement is not finding support among the PA membership? ^{No surprise there...} If that is the case I look forward to seeing who the URL will be posting as their shadow cabinet and to some lively terpelaziuns.

One way I might actually resile from this analysis is that I'm increasingly nervous about the ability to allocate seats off-list. I think the Progressive Alliance would have had a tougher time fending off accusations that they're simply reproducing the RUMP-clique of a decade ago if the broad masses had known they wanted to put the ex-King in the Cosa.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 07:22:14 PMDuring the last Cosa, a certain Cabinet minister was approached with an offer to join the main opposition party.  Hardball politics, but not outside the bounds of acceptable conduct!

👀

The following text is adapted from a speech I made to the inaugural convention of the URL, on July 30th this year. We are struck by the way that the Progressive Alliance leader, Baron Davinescu, seems to have been personally offended by this text. He cited this analysis as one of 3 points which meant the Progressive Alliance could not work with the URL, alongside one accusation of lying and one of excessive telling-the-truth.

We are struck by the fact that this confirms one of the points of the analysis - that the Progressive Alliance have an "anti-politics", where debate around principle is replaced by "team sports". Where to criticise the principles of your opponent is indistinguishable from a supposed lie or breach of confidence. This attitude, which sees political polemic as indistinguishable from personal beef, does not make political debate purer, but drags everything down into personal beef. And this one reason why Talossans increasingly shy away from politics.

In response to this analysis, the Progressive Alliance cannot seem to form a riposte in kind; only splutter about our personal unpleasantness. Accordingly, this analysis seems to get more accurate as time goes on, so we reproduce an amended version of it here.

===

There was a phenomenon in French politics of the 20th century where, since conservative politics had a bad name from years of monarchy and dictatorship, even the Right-wing parties called themselves "left" or "radical" or some such. We seem to have that issue in this country, too. Thus the main conservative party calls itself "Progressive".

During the last Cosa, a certain Cabinet minister was approached with an offer to join the main opposition party.  Hardball politics, but not outside the bounds of acceptable conduct!

But the offer was not made on the basis of political principle. It was not made on an appeal to dissatisfaction with the Government's record or political stance. No, it was made on the basis that... the Progressive Alliance's internal culture was "fun". I believe the actual comparison was made to "how things used to be in the Talossan National Congress". Only without the sex pest.

I 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 the 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.

I believe a kind of politics which doesn't think that there should really be politics is a danger to our democracy. The leader of this party once wrote a thread discussing court action to declare party lists inorganic. In which he made an effective argument that a party vote should be a vote for a blank cheque for a leader to hand out seats to whoever puts their hand up after the votes are already in. That is an appeal for "fan-club" politics in its purest form.

There still seem some who still seem to believe Talossa was pretty much perfect in 2011, before Reunision fouled everything, up by bringing in a group of Talossans with a different vision for the nation – that is, "real" politics. And may I say, if you wanted evidence of that, it's the discomfort of seeing our King wear the Sash of the Republic. To quote from the classics: the Republicans may have been on the losing side, but history is still out over whether it was the wrong one.

In contrast, the URL defends party lists in our current system as democratic. If the voters are to hold the legislature to account, every ballot should allow voters to know who they're putting in the Cosa (with some margin for flexibility, as in the current 1/3 of the seats).

You don't need to necessarily agree with URL's formal politics – our support for democratic reforms, "min-monarchism" and the rule of law – to appreciate our stance that there should be real politics in Talossa. That a country where politically indistinguishable "clubs" or "teams" compete on the same level as high-school cliques would be boring and annoying.

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on Yesterday at 06:44:40 PMI strongly caution against this.

While I have never been in support of advisory opinions, I do see the logic in the case of executive officials such as the Seneschal, the King, and (most especially) the Secretary of State. If someone must make a decision in the course of their duties, and they are truly concerned that decision will be challenged (causing a huge headache), I get why advance guidance is appreciated.

The same does not apply to any old MZ who just wants to humor their curiosity in the absence of a live controversy.

Do you support allowing the A-X to seek an advisory opinion?

Quote from: Sir Lüc on December 14, 2025, 02:40:16 PMFee payment status updated. The only missing fee is @Béneditsch Ardpresteir 's $5 Senate winner's fee.

I would also like to update on the status of certification. As of today, two commissioners have voted to certify with no notes. We will officially wrap up tomorrow.

BenArd's fee has been received

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 06:39:21 PMeven now, you can't help yourself from the attacks

Do you remember at the time when we were getting together the Joint Statement against Breneir's sexual harassment? And I suggested expanding it to all forms of harassment, and you said no, because you thought what Breneir did to Dien (for example) was in the realms of legitimate political action?

You have always been able to dish it out, but not to take it. And that's going to be the PA's undoing in this Cosa.

I strongly caution against this.

While I have never been in support of advisory opinions, I do see the logic in the case of executive officials such as the Seneschal, the King, and (most especially) the Secretary of State. If someone must make a decision in the course of their duties, and they are truly concerned that decision will be challenged (causing a huge headache), I get why advance guidance is appreciated.

The same does not apply to any old MZ who just wants to humor their curiosity in the absence of a live controversy.