Vote Free Democrat for the 57th Cosa. Miestra Schiva for Seneschal.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Estimadas es amadas cüncitaxhiens:

Against my own preferences, but rising to face necessity, I am presenting myself as the Free Democrats' candidate for Seneschal in the 57th Cosa election. "Just when I thought I was semi-retired in a hole, they pull me back in again."

The reason I gave up the presidency of the party, and stepped aside from the job of leading the Government, over the last calendar year was a feeling that I had reached a dead end.

The decades-long struggle to reform Talossa's Organic Law to decrease the unilateral, unaccountable power of the monarchy – and its seemingly inevitable effect of encouraging every King of Talossa in lazy, self-righteous defence of power for power's sake – had been mostly effective, but had bogged down at the very last hurdle of basic democratic accountability. Political struggle against a group of people who are convinced not only of their right to set the agenda for the nation regardless of lack of mandate, but of their right to be taken seriously, takes a lot out of you, and you have to question at what point you say "enough".

I also had to have the humility to admit that I had no answers to the most fundamental question facing Talossa – where are new citizens going to come from? Because Talossa's leadership – on both sides of the Cosa – is old, tired, and burned out. I mean old in "Talossa years", which are something like "dog years", in that you get tired at an accelerated rate. Much the same people are running the institutions and having the debates as they were at the time of Reunision. This is not healthy.

The most articulate monarchists, of course, have an argument that it's precisely the smug pomposity of monarchist Talossa that attracts new citizens, and things like democracy, equality, making the "top jobs" open to all, are no fun and ruin the essence of Talossanity. But that can't be true. Can it? If it is, I've wasted 25 years.

This speech is difficult for me because I have to be honest about the consequences of my decisions. I have to admit that the Government of the 56th Cosa has mostly been a failure.

Part of this was its inexplicable sabotage at the beginning by one of the three initial Coalition parties – who, after campaigning in the election on the basis of supporting the "Monarchist-Republican Compromise" – turned tail, broke for Opposition, and subsequently loudly opposed the compromise. And they never gave any explanation why, apart from insults. The fact that this party now provides a home for veterans of the RUMP gives a hint as to what might be going on, though.

I know that the study of Talossan history is not fashionable at the moment, but even King Robert I knew why the Kuenn/Rosalez faction, known as "Davron", were such bad news. Unprincipled politicking and backstabbing in the search for power alone is even worse than KR1's tyranny, which at least had a vision of Talossa behind it. This might sound like picking a fight. But I'm always stunned at people who defend their right to behave as they want, to break commitments, and not only suffer no consequences, but for it never be mentioned again. What goes round must come round.

But that could have been surmounted, if the Free Democrat and LCC Ministers had subsequently pulled together and did their job. But mostly, we didn't.

I have to be honest here. The performance of my successor as Seneschál, Txoteu Davinescu, has not been satisfactory. Up until this point, my personal friendship with Txoteu and the requirements of Cabinet solidarity and party loyalty have led me, publicly, to avoid this particular elephant in the room. But the Talossan people are not fooled. You all know what's going on. Some of you have even noticed the point where the old Distáin had to step up and publicly take up the slack.

I have been honest with the Seneschal about this behind closed doors. Txoteu has had a string of difficult things to deal with in his extra-Talossan life that have taken attention away from his duties in leading the Government. I bear him only the best of will and I hope to see him representing the Free Democrats in the next Cosa. But to pretend there was no problem with the 56th Cosa government would be rightfully scorned by the Talossan public. It also would also make my decision to resume the leadership inexplicable.

Of course, it wasn't all the Seneschal's fault. At least one Cabinet Minister has done precisely nothing in his role in this term, and we couldn't fire him because there hasn't been an obvious replacement. But "the fish rots from the head", as they say. Culture is set from the top down. A Seneschal has to lead.

My main qualification - perhaps the only one - for the top job is that I do what I say I'm going to do, regardless of personal convenience. The 56th Cosa cabinet had six policy portfolios with targets to be achieved. I ended up doing two of those – Justice and Interior – all on my own, and hitting virtually every goal for achievement we set. But I did this at the cost of burning myself out, personally.

What all this has shown is that running the Talossan government is a lot of hard work. But it has also shown me that our Organic and statute laws make this much harder work than it has to be. Contrary to the opinions of certain of my Cosa colleagues, "overly formal and pompous rules" are not a good thing. They are part of the reason Talossa grinds to a halt. There is too much that the laws say have to be done, and not enough people to do it.

I mean, the Electoral Commission, to start with. Why do we have to go through that rigmarole every time? I'll tell you why – because when the secret ballot was first brought in, the RUMP party (fearing electoral disadvantage) professed anxiety about how easy it would be for a secret ballot to be rigged by the Chancery. And things are MUCH harder to abolish than they are to establish in Talossa. So: this vestigial body has to be appointed every time to do nothing.

There is a temptation for the party in power to run on its record. "Re-elect us because we're the only ones who know how things work". That's how the RUMP party stayed in office. The Free Democrats are not going to do that. We couldn't claim, on the evidence of the last term at least, that we're superior in activity or administrative 'chops' than a putative opposition. (I might note here the good record of the Balançéu party's leadership in the Cézembre provincial government. That's what the provinces are there for.)

So the two central platforms of the Free Democrats in this 57th Cosa election are:

1)   Enact the Monarchist-Republican Compromise, finally. We're serious this time. We will need a 2/3 Cosa majority – along with whatever other parties decide to support us – to finally bring Senator Plätschisch's much watered-down "Compromise on the Compromise" bill to a public referendum. This is the last step in the drawn-out process of removing the old, corrupt, RUMP-system in Talossa. There is a layer of people in Talossa who have no political mandate, and yet are given power by the King precisely because they protect his right to unaccountable exercise of power. The King himself has stated this openly. How anyone cannot see that this is the definition of corruption is beyond me. While this bill is not how I would choose to solve the problem – a "legislative decapitation" would be more to my liking – this is the last throw of the dice before a large segment of Talossans understand that it is impossible to put John I under any accountability under the OrgLaw, and draw the appropriate conclusions.

2)   Cut red-and-green tape. There is just too much law. There are too many Government offices who cannot be filled. We'll repeal all of it that we possibly can. We'll merge provinces where-ever we can. If we could, we'll downsize the Talossan state to the point that three or four people can comprise a full Cabinet, and do everything to keep our ImagiNation running smoothly.

I have to conclude with a solemn promise. If Talossa is not fundamentally different by the end of this term – if our programme has not succeeded in a buzzing country where new citizens become active with enthusiasm, where many more people are keen to take positions of responsibility, where the political leadership is actively competed over rather than being a "booby prize" – then this will be my last venture into national politics. If Talossa is not significantly better, if it has not become a fun pastime for me rather than an annoying and infuriating chore, I will retire from active political leadership at the end of the coming term, and scale my Talossanity back drastically, perhaps only to language nerdery and writing, perhaps to zero. This would require the current opposition to get a Government together and run stuff, which might be funny to watch, from a distance.

But I have promised at least one more term to my Free Democrat colleagues. Because I still believe in the possibilities of what Talossa might be. I still refuse to believe that Talossa is better and more fun when run by a self-declared aristocracy. I believe in the principles for which I fought in 2012, 2004 and 1997. Even if I am burned out before the end of the year, those principles must be fought for to the last drop of my will to be Talossan.

Vote Free Democrat. That is all.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm sorry that you find that you're in this position.  You clearly, clearly don't wish to be.  You even made a long speech about how this very situation last term, when you announced that you were stepping aside from the leadership of your party for the sake of "your health, the health of Talossa, and the health of the party" -- since "this party has no future if it is to be Miestră's fan club."  You said that you wanted to take a break from leading your party because you saw it as an important and necessary "test" -- a test of whether they were just a fan club or a "real political party?"  Didn't the results of your test give you any pause?

I guess you feel forced to ignore it and charge ahead, even though you think it's hurting your health... even though you said you think it's hurting Talossa.  But you just said that you're already exhausted and burned-out.  Are you really going to try to do even more next term, returning to being Seneschal?  Is that wise for you, personally?  Is that a good idea for the country?

Even worse, this new two-point party platform looks like it's just more of what we've been seeing for years: a relentless focus on reshaping the laws that govern an increasingly quiet country.  You gave a long speech just a couple of months ago about how Talossa's very survival was in peril.  You said, "The country is now in a serious crisis of activity, and it is possible that Talossa will die within 6 months if something doesn't change."  Your platform makes it seem like you're back in denial about our country's problems.

(By the way, I'm not sure unilaterally changing your party's platform is helpful for the "not a fan club" theory of things.)

It's hard to even know what's really true, here.  You used to get shocked and offended at the suggestion that you were acting as the real Seneschal, and just two weeks ago the nominal Seneschal was saying that "the amazing leadership team currently in place has gone above and beyond to complete our goals this term."  What's going to be true two weeks from now?

In the end, I do admire the chutzpah: "We've massively failed you this term, and we're not planning on doing anything differently, but elect us anyway."

We need to make a change and do something different, because this hasn't been working.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I can understand that the statement "I am returning to active service, against my personal preference, because my party asked me to" might well be confusing, from a certain point of view. But we only achieve freedom when we achieve freedom from "like" and "dislike", when we become able to make decisions whereby even Allà can rely on us to carry them out.

There's something to admire about AD's post, and that is that he seemingly tracks my statements and speeches with far more consistency than I do. To attract that kind of attention suggests that there's something "behind" Miestra's public statements which holds interest, even power. It also suggests that perhaps the return of Miestra to active service is an unwelcome surprise in the ranks of the Talossan National Congress election campaign.

He's also right that the crisis of Talossan activity has extended to within the Free Democrats. So, in a situation like that - when you try to pass the ball, and it gets dropped - what do you do? Do you say "oh well, everyone else has given up, guess I have to too"? As I have tried to explain many times, the Free Democrats are a party of principle, and that principle is "liberty and democracy first". When you stand on principle, doing things that are hard and unpleasant becomes bearable.

Our party is suffering from personal burnout, as is a lot of Talossa, by the looks of it. But the principle is worth defending. To be honest - if another party based on Republican or reform-Monarchist positions were running, with a team of competent and active members, I would actually counsel that the FreeDems step aside and let them have it. But it's only us at the moment.

Since I have built a reputation as someone who is consistently active despite the vicissitudes of extra-Talossan life, then the voters have a choice, given the (frankly very encouraging) burst of activity currently coming from the TNC leader, as to whose hands the Seneschalsqåb should be placed. But the voters will decide whether the TNC team as currently formed is any more "credible" than the FreeDems team.

Past the question of personnel, is a question of principle. You can vote for the TNC if you believe that the laundry-list of hobbyhorses that AD keeps reposting like he was Cato the Elder really are the magical key that will restore activity - and if you believe that the Talossan Monarchy as currently constituted is fully functional, or indeed, functional at all. Or: you can vote for the Free Democrat principle of liberty and democracy first, of, let us say, "monarchy-skepticism".

All political careers end in failure. But if the Free Democrats of Talossa have outlived their useful life - as the RUMP and the Moderate Radical did before us - and if I have reached the end of what I can offer Talossa, let the voters cast the verdict.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It also suggests that perhaps the return of Miestra to active service is an unwelcome surprise in the ranks of the Talossan National Congress election campaign.

Your return...?  You were retired for like ten minutes, back in April of last year or something.

All political careers end in failure.

What?  No, they don't.  There are a lot of politicians who don't end as failures.  Why would you think this was the only option?  You don't have to just plow forward until someone makes you stop, like you're Ricky Bobby or something.

Ricky Bobby

Not that Shake 'n Bake isn't amazing, but political careers can also end with changing to a new challenge after a setback (Mayor Goff of Auckland, NZ), retirement because you're tired (Sen. Leahy of Vermont, USA), retirement because you're sick (PM Churchill of the UK), or retirement on your own terms because you want to do something new (PM Key of NZ).

I mean, I know you're not going to change your mind, but just be aware that you have options.  Ian P is an active member of your party who be the candidate, for example.  Or Txec could lead -- he has the energy and vision.  Don't make yourself ill over this.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Dr Nordselva is happy serving as Secretary of State. Senator Plätschisch said no. So, there you go.

Enoch Powell was a reprehensible racist and reactionary, but I maintain he had a point. But more seriously, there has only been once in Cyber-era Talossan history where a change of government happened because of a defeat at the polls (i.e. the will of the people) - the RUMP losing power in 2014. Every other time, the ruling party dissolved, or quit the country, or decided voluntarily to go into opposition (FreeDems in the 50th Cosa). I still believe in altérnance, but when the people want it, not because there is no choice and the election is a walkover. The future of the Free Democrats will be reassessed after the election, when the people have had their say. Not before.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

BTW, can someone explain why the TNC leader is trying to get Free Democrat members to "jump ship" and join his party list?

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

BTW, can someone explain why the TNC leader is trying to get Free Democrat members to "jump ship" and join his party list?

No, Miestra. No one will play that game. Explain your record of the past six months.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

BTW, can someone explain why the TNC leader is trying to get Free Democrat members to "jump ship" and join his party list?

No, Miestra. No one will play that game. Explain your record of the past six months.

[Ian Plätschisch]

BTW, can someone explain why the TNC leader is trying to get Free Democrat members to "jump ship" and join his party list?

No, Miestra. No one will play that game. Explain your record of the past six months.

To be fair, you also have a bit of explaining to do. I'm very happy to see you back, don't get me wrong, but let's not forget how this term started. You founded a party that promised to support the Monarchy reform bill, then joined the Government promising to contribute to it, then immediately quit the Government and did very little in Talossa except vote against the bill you promised to support.

If you are serious about contesting this election, one would think you would need to give some sort of account of all that.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

BTW, can someone explain why the TNC leader is trying to get Free Democrat members to "jump ship" and join his party list?

No, Miestra. No one will play that game. Explain your record of the past six months.

To be fair, you also have a bit of explaining to do. I'm very happy to see you back, don't get me wrong, but let's not forget how this term started. You founded a party that promised to support the Monarchy reform bill, then joined the Government promising to contribute to it, then immediately quit the Government and did very little in Talossa except vote against the bill you promised to support.

If you are serious about contesting this election, one would think you would need to give some sort of account of all that.

I have to admit to some curiosity, myself. Outsiders like myself were able to witness the sharp disagreements and subsequent disillusionment that occurred among members of the initial coalition, but we never really saw much beyond that. I do remember the Seneschal apologized at one point for how he handled the entire incident, but otherwise the whole thing seemed to disappear into the classic black hole of this Government.

What caused the initial breach of trust, Breneir?

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

To be fair, you also have a bit of explaining to do. I'm very happy to see you back, don't get me wrong, but let's not forget how this term started. You founded a party that promised to support the Monarchy reform bill, then joined the Government promising to contribute to it, then immediately quit the Government and did very little in Talossa except vote against the bill you promised to support.

If you are serious about contesting this election, one would think you would need to give some sort of account of all that.

I have to admit to some curiosity, myself. Outsiders like myself were able to witness the sharp disagreements and subsequent disillusionment that occurred among members of the initial coalition, but we never really saw much beyond that.

The thing is that there was nothing behind the scenes. That was the puzzling part. Basically, M. Yasir, the TNC member of the Cosa, voted against Txoteu in the Seneschál election, immediately breaking the coalition agreement we'd just signed. Txoteu sent a (somewhat sharply worded) note to Brenéir telling him to sort it out. Next we know, Breneir has quit the coalition, via a post on Wittenberg - nothing in private. Txoteu apologised for his tone, in public and in private. I sent several courteous notes asking if we could repair things. Breneir never replied, and then he turned on a dime and voted against the Compromise - the very issue on which he had broken with the LCC for not supporting.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

To be fair, you also have a bit of explaining to do. I'm very happy to see you back, don't get me wrong, but let's not forget how this term started. You founded a party that promised to support the Monarchy reform bill, then joined the Government promising to contribute to it, then immediately quit the Government and did very little in Talossa except vote against the bill you promised to support.

If you are serious about contesting this election, one would think you would need to give some sort of account of all that.

I have to admit to some curiosity, myself. Outsiders like myself were able to witness the sharp disagreements and subsequent disillusionment that occurred among members of the initial coalition, but we never really saw much beyond that.

The thing is that there was nothing behind the scenes. That was the puzzling part. Basically, M. Yasir, the TNC member of the Cosa, voted against Txoteu in the Seneschál election, immediately breaking the coalition agreement we'd just signed. Txoteu sent a (somewhat sharply worded) note to Brenéir telling him to sort it out. Next we know, Breneir has quit the coalition, via a post on Wittenberg - nothing in private. Txoteu apologised for his tone, in public and in private. I sent several courteous notes asking if we could repair things. Breneir never replied, and then he turned on a dime and voted against the Compromise - the very issue on which he had broken with the LCC for not supporting.

Well, I guess you can never tell what will make someone rethink their previous decisions.  I was very surprised, myself, when the LCC supported eliminating the monarchy -- opposing almost an identical proposal had been the group's raison d'etre, after all.  I felt betrayed (and clearly a lot of voters agreed) by Txosue R.'s shift.

I was happy to see that we may have left the whole bitter and nasty fight behind, actually, when the FDT approved their four-point platform in the most recent convention, when you said that the issue just wasn't that pressing when compared to the continued existence of the country.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

was very surprised, myself, when the LCC supported eliminating the monarchy -- opposing almost an identical proposal had been the group's raison d'etre, after all.  I felt betrayed (and clearly a lot of voters agreed) by Txosue R.'s shift.

"The ability to lie, WITHOUT SHAME and SUFFERING NO SHAME WHEN CAUGHT, in [Talossan politics] is a superpower. It's Neo in the Matrix"

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

was very surprised, myself, when the LCC supported eliminating the monarchy -- opposing almost an identical proposal had been the group's raison d'etre, after all.  I felt betrayed (and clearly a lot of voters agreed) by Txosue R.'s shift.

"The ability to lie, WITHOUT SHAME and SUFFERING NO SHAME WHEN CAUGHT, in [Talossan politics] is a superpower. It's Neo in the Matrix"

We just saw for quite some length how you have been fairly comfortable misrepresenting events and situations, and shifting positions from month to month. You knew that the Seneschal was inactive and that you were running things, even while you loudly declared that this was not the case. I also have a reputation for being pretty rigorously truthful for a reason... It's important to me. It's certainly possible I'm mistaken, but since it's my life and I remember the detail conversations when collaborating on the LCC platform with him, maybe this is yet another time you are not quite "consistent?"

I mean, I would be very surprised to find out I was mistaken about this. I do remember when the LCC formed the term before last quite clearly.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I was happy to see that we may have left the whole bitter and nasty fight behind, actually, when the FDT approved their four-point platform in the most recent convention, when you said that the issue just wasn't that pressing when compared to the continued existence of the country.

Which part of the platform are you reading? Our platform reads:

MONARCHIST/REPUBLICAN COMPROMISE. Free Democrats include both monarchists and republicans, but we all put liberty and democracy first in Talossa. We will offer our support to a Talossan Head of State who is continually active, puts the interests of the Nation above defending their own interests and prestige, and acts as the servant rather than the owner of the State. We support Organic structures which ensure that our Head of State operates in this way.

It does not say "the issue is not pressing when compared to the continued existence of the country." It says we put liberty and democracy first in Talossa. It also calls for an active head of state, and not one who hasn't even logged into Wittenberg in 31 days and doesn't respond to emails from his own Secretary of State.