Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 02:02:54 AMBarclamïu is from Poland, so he knows from democratic backsliding.

That and censorship. I remember that privately-owned TV stations temporarily stopped broadcasting in protest or something. There was a black screen with a message related to that.

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?

Pardon my intrusion but I would call all this democratic backsliding if we ("we" as in the country) were to reinstate Robert I's citizenship, considering that form what I've read he's had dictatorship fantasies. My guess would be that once he regains his citizenship, should that happen at all, he would want to return to power. Correct me if I'm wrong I guess.

I'm curious as to what the advantages are of keeping the current 200-seat model as opposed to reducing it to 20?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on December 07, 2025, 09:39:03 PMWe had established an opening position which would have called for:

• One or more guarantees of open discussion on democratic/legislative reforms;
• An appointment of one or more URL members to senior non-cabinet posts, to prevent the experience of the previous TNC administration which kept everything tightly within their party; and
• An assurance of no politicized "investigations".

I 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!  But that's okay.

Anyway, it seems weird that the alliance that we announced a month ago took you by surprise.  If you recall, when we first discussed working with the IDT in November, you actually sent out a mailer to the country attacking us for it?

I hope we can move past this pattern, Mic'halgh.  The URL approach of hard-charging aggression and creativity with the truth played a large role in the election outcome.  I think that it's really hard to sell people on this idea that you guys are the lonely warriors for virtue and we're rabid monsters of oppression, because it depends so heavily on people ignoring the evidence of their eyes and ears.  They're not going to believe that we're slamming the door on you to be "cliquish, insular, and hostile to feedback from non-party members," because they see the opposite happening.

However, we're going to stick to our plan: we're still hoping you guys are willing to work with others and get things done for Talossa.  We're always going to want to work with you, even if it may not be the position of command to which you're used.  Like I said before:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 07, 2025, 07:11:32 PMIf you guys change your mind and are interested in being a part of the Government, we're still happy to discuss how to advance the interests of your constituents in achieving your party policy goals, since a lot of them seem great.  I respect your decision if you're just taking that off the table, but the door is open if you guys change your mind.  And of course, we'll be happy to discuss other items such as cooperation in the Senate, as well.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on December 07, 2025, 09:41:44 PMUnfortunately, your "Got What I Voted For" award is already in the mail.

How clever!

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on December 07, 2025, 09:37:30 PM

Quote from: Mximo Malt on December 07, 2025, 05:52:40 PMIf we had a state religion (theoretically), I would think that the Archbishop of Abbavilla would have the right to suspend or depose the King/Queen based upon his actions, but that would seem too theocratic...

As a Buddhist myself, Christian theocracy is a big fat NO for me.

Unfortunately, your "Got What I Voted For" award is already in the mail.

Immediately after the Cosa election, the Union of Free Reformists reached out to the Progressive Alliance to seek co-operation on the formation of a new government under PA leadership. This was motivated by looking at the electoral results and realizing that without our support, the PA could only form a government by relying on the votes of either (A) an absolute monarchist who wants to rehabilitate the former King Robert I, or (B) those of a roundly-ostracized sexual harasser. Because the PA leader is someone we believed would maintain his pledge to not rely on the support of (B), we thought the first danger was much more pressing. We were right.

After initial discussions between our two party leaders, a framework was established for further negotiations on a confidence & supply arrangement, which would mitigate some of the worst-case scenarios we foresaw for a PA-led government. We had established an opening position which would have called for:

• One or more guarantees of open discussion on democratic/legislative reforms;
• An appointment of one or more URL members to senior non-cabinet posts, to prevent the experience of the previous TNC administration which kept everything tightly within their party; and
• An assurance of no politicized "investigations".

While this was going on, without warning, the PA announced this afternoon that they had entered into a formal coalition deal with the absolute-monarchist IDT. This means a government with 102 seats in the Cosa - a majority. This means, of course, that there is zero leverage to be gained from a confidence & supply deal on the part of the URL, making the whole exercise pointless, and blowing up the deal before we even got to formal negotiations. This is either an unprecedented level of bad faith, or a shocking level of ignorance of how parliamentary democracy works. We are trying to believe that it's the latter, but to not even warn us or inform us that they were shopping themselves around, is incredibly rude at a minimum.

In the wake of the election, the URL has reached out to non-party members to get feedback on what they feel went wrong with our campaign. One answer we got was: "you guys seemed too negative; no-one really thought the PA were going to damage Talossan democracy". I really wish I didn't have a second occasion in one election season to post this image.

What makes this even more precarious is the announcement of the Green Party that they don't intend to be the opposition "very hard" this time. Clearly, S:reu Tzaracomprada, who was openly sympathetic to the PA during the election campaign, thinks this is the way he can slide back into Baron Davinescu's good graces, thus reassembling the TNC coalition of years gone by. As stated above, the PA leader is someone we do not expect to renege on his pledge, and seems to be genuinely repulsed by S:reu Tzaracomparada's behavior and unrepentent attitude. But he's also determined to bring everyone possible into the tent, making the odds of this rehabilitation happening greater than we would hope.

Not even yet mentioned is the proposed rehabilitation of King Robert I, which the soon-to-be Minister of Culture is so enthusiastic about. We wonder whether the PA considered the reaction of the Talossan-speaking community to the fact that "Monarchist Max" is now their boss.

The axis of all Talossan politics has therefore turned against the Union of Free Reformists. We are very aware that some Progressive Alliance members are motivated mainly by undisguised hatred of members of the URL, stemming back more than a decade in some cases. There is now a great danger that we are at the beginning of a new "RUMP" era, where a broad conservative coalition monopolizes power over multiple Cosa terms, assimilating everyone who can be assimilated and excluding the rest, both politically and socially. Certainly, all the old faces of the RUMP era are coming back.

In 1999, the entire Talossan Liberal Party renounced their citizenship when they came to the conclusion that there was zero chance of winning democratic reforms under Robert I. The question is whether something similar is about to happen, or whether the Union of Free Reformists are prepared to set themselves to a possibly lonely, multi-year mission of strenuous Opposition and fervent promotion of our Democracy Agenda. For my part, I will remain, but I can't say I blame those who wish to flee persecution before it arrives at their doorstep.

In the more immediate term, at least, it is good to have cleared the air regarding the path forward that the nation will take. The Union of Free Reformists will form the official Opposition, with myself as Opposition Leader and a Shadow Cabinet to keep the government as close to honest as possible. Our Democracy Agenda, which we will outline in more detail in the coming weeks, will form the centerpiece of our activity over the next eight months. Given the performance from the last time the PA held in office -- then of course known as the TNC, but the faces remain the same -- we expect this government to be cliquish, insular, and hostile to feedback from non-party members. We will seek to expose this, and offer the country a more professional alternative.

¡Vivadra Talossa democrätic!

Quote from: Mximo Malt on December 07, 2025, 05:52:40 PMIf we had a state religion (theoretically), I would think that the Archbishop of Abbavilla would have the right to suspend or depose the King/Queen based upon his actions, but that would seem too theocratic...

As a Buddhist myself, Christian theocracy is a big fat NO for me.