Statement on "negative attacks"

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

At absolute best, the Most Honourable Seneschal is confused about events.  Thankfully, the thread is right here.

Original Context
I wrote and posted my simple bill on August 12th.  At that time, there had been zero immigration for four months.  Literally, zero.  We hadn't yet lucked out with the Tiktok video or magazine article of last month.

The Process
MC Somelieir objected to one of the introductory clauses, since I said the bill was to resolve a legal ambiguity.  She said that I wasn't allowed to say that.  We argued about it briefly, but I decided that it wasn't important and just deleted the entire clause to which she objected.

Then the Most Honourable Seneschal posted what she calls a "snide comment," saying "I do think that E.5 probably is a bit wider in scope than appropriate. And the Government would be willing to discuss softening it - if we weren't having these discussions with an individual whose whole political 'shtick' right now is angry condemnation that the Government isn't jumping and hollering and doing political theatre around immigration."

Then when I Clarked it, she has already confessed to lobbying her party to vote against it.  And so it failed to pass.

The Motivation
Please notice that I am directly recounting and often quoting from the public record about this, whereas the Most Honourable Seneschal feels free to be a little more creative.

That's also why she says, over and over again, that she's afraid she's going to be prosecuted.  At this point, this has to be called what it is... a falsehood.  She's lying.  She knows that I have repeatedly told her that's outright impossible.  But it's a more sympathetic story than killing a necessary bill just because you don't like the sponsor.

The Most Honourable Seneschal feels caught out on a deeply unpopular decision, knows that there will be a reckoning with the voters, and she's looking for an excuse to explain it.  But there's no excuse that holds water, folks.  There's no good explanation for the Government demanding the power to secretly control immigration.  There's no good explanation for lying about it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Riddle me this, Batman:

- if the PA admits that they have no evidence that I'm not throwing immigration apps in the trash, and that they don't even think I'm doing it;
- and that I'm going to be immigration minister at least until December 1;

then: why was reforming this law last month such an urgent priority that people would flip parties over it?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I was honestly very surprised that the URL voted down The Public Process Act.  Here's a power that you have admitted many times you think is excessive, and a simple bill which would fix it to require transparency in the process.

I guess my thinking was like this:

STEP ONE
"Hey, an egregious violation of our civil liberties and basic good governance.  Let's fix it!"

STEP TWO
"Wait, the URL is voting against the bill... they want to keep the power to secretly control immigration?  I should try to get public support for the bill, so they don't kill it."

STEP THREE
"Well, I guess the URL has taken a position in favor of secret government control over immigration, so we'd better campaign on that and get the votes to fix this... since they just showed everyone their position."

And that's where we're at now.  I think that if you didn't want your party to take this position, you probably shouldn't have lobbied for it so hard.  You stuck them with this, and now you won't let them move on to a more positive subject.

Maybe we can move on and discuss some other topic?  Like we could talk about some policy plans for the next term?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

You did not answer my question.

This saga has a few points which go to the question of your personal fitness to be Seneschal:

• The original intemperate comments - including accusations of corrupt interference in the immigration process of that Malawian fellow - which sapped my interest in engaging with you at all.
• The unwillingness to consult with other parties over the (howsoever well-intentioned but) flawed bill. This attitude that "silence = consent" is what the Distáin was criticised for over the Fixed Terms amendment.
• The opportunistic panic-mongering that a loophole which you know I hadn't used and wasn't intending to was such an urgent priority as to make a central election issue.

That's not to deny my own responsibility. I made a political blunder in that I thought if I deprived your increasingly shrill accusations of the oxygen of my attention, no-one else would pay attention either. Clearly I was wrong, and you've made great political hay out of it. Well done.

As I keep saying to the Sex Pest, I beg you to understand that your behaviour has consequences on how other people engage with you.