URL Statement on the Government-To-Be

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

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!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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".

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:

If 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.

[Barclamïu da Miéletz]

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.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

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!

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.

[Barclamïu da Miéletz]

Barclamïu 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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Most Honourable Seneschal, I'm not rattled, just bemused that you guys are still doing this.  It's a lie to suggest that Mic'halgh ever presented those terms to me.  You guys are lying.  Again.

We went through a whole campaign of this, and the voters just rejected it in a very clear voice.  It's not a good idea to try to scare people by lying about your political opponents, since it creates a lot of animosity and scares people.  And also we just saw how it doesn't work. 

People aren't going to believe you, since they're going to see that it's not true.

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 don't think I would vote for Max's bill, personally, unless Robert I came back and apologized.  You might have seen how I can be a stickler for that kind of thing.

Please be aware that Max has agreed to a coalition agreement in which he is only going to work on promoting our language, and anything else requires approval from me.  Talossa will not be turning into a theocratic autocracy on my watch, don't worry.

[Barclamïu da Miéletz]

Talossa will not be turning into a theocratic autocracy on my watch, don't worry.

That just so happens to remind me of Polish right-wing politicians (mainly ones from PiS), just saying.

[Mximo Malt]

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.

Maybe he can make a promise not to do that once he regains his citizenship? I'm just coming up with this on the fly, so pardon me if it sounds stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Barclamïu, I have a pretty long track record in Talossan politics, and I've spent a lot of time fighting for democratic reforms.  The old system of laws was just a crazy hodgepodge of dozens of individual things that only a few people knew about, until my project of coming up with el Lexhatx.  Or even recently, only a few people would know where to find information on things like the government budget or immigration statistics, until my project of developing Infoteca.  My legacy in Talossa is one of good-government reforms and systems, and I plan on continuing in that tradition.

But don't take my word for it.  Stay engaged and hold us accountable!  If you see me sponsoring a bill to favor Christianity -- unlikely, since I'm an atheist, but let's just speculate -- then you should speak up!

There's a reason why I insisted that we leave the door open to work with the URL, even after everything, and it's because I sincerely believe that it's better to hear everyone's voice.  And that goes for you, too.

[King Txec]

If the former king Robert wished to re-immigrate, I'm sure he would face similarly steep opposition to the last time he attempted it. While the majority of current citizens have had no interaction with him and have only read about him, and while it was amazing what he did accomplish, many questions would still be raised.

Also remember, I have great confidence in our system of government and, as Sovereign, you can rest assured that I will do everything in my power to prevent damage to that system. Talossan's are a quirky people and we have lots of quirky ideas, including the very notion that we can create and participate in our crazy little kingdom.

-Txec R

[Mximo Malt]

If the former king Robert wished to re-immigrate, I'm sure he would face similarly steep opposition to the last time he attempted it. While the majority of current citizens have had no interaction with him and have only read about him, and while it was amazing what he did accomplish, many questions would still be raised.

Also remember, I have great confidence in our system of government and, as Sovereign, you can rest assured that I will do everything in my power to prevent damage to that system. Talossan's are a quirky people and we have lots of quirky ideas, including the very notion that we can create and participate in our crazy little kingdom.

-Txec R

This is what I like to see in a King! Bravo, Your Majesty!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Françal I. Lux]

The URL leadership's penchant for personal attacks and hyperbole is the very reason you lost this election, but by all means double down on your vindictive approach. I'm sure it'll work wonders for you in the Opposition.

This country has as much chance turning into a theocratic absolute monarchy as it does into an anarchic republic and everyone knows that.

Your fear-mongering lost you the election, so keep it up. In the meantime, we will govern well and not neglect our responsibilities because of personal animosities.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I suppose telling blatant lies "because we have an election to win" is the more effective approach, given that it paid off quite well, true.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

The URL leadership's penchant for personal attacks and hyperbole is the very reason you lost this election, but by all means double down on your vindictive approach. I'm sure it'll work wonders for you in the Opposition.

[...]

Your fear-mongering lost you the election, so keep it up. In the meantime, we will govern well and not neglect our responsibilities because of personal animosities.

Setting aside the deeply unprofessional and needlessly aggressive tone, it is not hyperbole or fearmongering to say that the PA is planning to work together with an absolutist theocrat. And it is also not hyperbole or fearmongering to point out that some members of the PA have professed similar opinions in the past, as such this collaboration appears very natural.

This country has as much chance turning into a theocratic absolute monarchy as it does into an anarchic republic and everyone knows that.

We don't, in fact, know that.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Please be aware that Max has agreed to a coalition agreement in which he is only going to work on promoting our language, and anything else requires approval from me.  Talossa will not be turning into a theocratic autocracy on my watch, don't worry.

"Please be aware that Comrade Stalin has agreed to a coalition agreement in which he is only going to work on ethnic minority issues, and anything else requires approval from me."

I suppose that someone who's only even lived in a liberal democracy doesn't understand how people who come from a country where they're a real threat would react to the politics of reactionary Traditionalism.

We went through a whole campaign of this, and the voters just rejected it in a very clear voice.  It's not a good idea to try to scare people by lying about your political opponents, since it creates a lot of animosity and scares people.  And also we just saw how it doesn't work. 

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

Setting aside the deeply unprofessional and needlessly aggressive tone

Looks like "hard-charging aggression and creativity with the truth" is fine when they do it.

That's the issue here, isn't it? We don't think the PA believe in absolute monarchy. We think the PA brought someone who doesn't believe in democracy into government because they don't believe in anything. Except that their team should be in power - and our team shouldn't.

The Progs have screwed the pooch royally. A confidence/supply deal with Monarchist Max would have raised grumbles but not scared people. Why?

My theory is this: the Baron is a reasonable man and was prepared to discuss URL proposals. But the Prog caucus is held together by no principles, but one: the URL are bad guys. They preferred to compromise on Talossan democracy than to make an agreement with the "defeated" URL. They have started their term in government by "neglecting their responsibilities (to democracy) because of personal animosities."

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

The old system of laws was just a crazy hodgepodge of dozens of individual things that only a few people knew about, until my project of coming up with el Lexhatx.

...

Codification of Talossan law was a platform of the Talossan Republicans, led by me. Your party, the RUMP, opposed it for a long time. Eventually, after you'd lost the political argument, you (personally) did most of the work putting El Lexhatx together. And you deserve recognition for that. But it was a Republican idea.

When you're rattled, Alex, you start telling open lies, that anyone who looks it up on OldWitt can check.

BTW, the angry ranting and psychological projection ("no it is YOU who are angrily ranting!!!") from the Progs are getting out of control, so this thread is close to being closed down. No doubt we'll continue the discussion elsewhere.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Happily, the record reflects that I didn't oppose this.  Instead, I actively encouraged you to work on the project, and mentioned it frequently as something I wanted to see happen.  Here's an example. It was just a question of the sheer amount of work. And I'm not afraid of hard work.

Being the most progressive member of a conservative party was sometimes awkward, of course. I know some people in my party at the time opposed it, just like some people in your party at the time opposed it, but I'm not sure how that's really relevant when I've been consistent on this the whole way through. It's false to suggest that I ever stood in the way. I remember when I was defending the bill to establish the secret ballot, I had to argue for quite a while with Cresti. Sometimes that's how it goes.

I'm not a big believer in the idea that it's good to "rattle" someone -- I'm not sure it says much about the truth of the matter.  So I don't know that it matters a lot if someone is getting upset. But people should have learned at this point not to believe you, Most Honourable Seneschal.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

The old system of laws was just a crazy hodgepodge of dozens of individual things that only a few people knew about,

This is true, though you yourself didn't seem to have seen it that way at first:

Some Talossans have complained that they have difficulty figuring out the laws and procedure. Frankly, in my experience these individuals have never actually bothered to try... especially with the existence of the wiki, which allows a simple-word search through the whole law, it's not too difficult to find laws on any given subject.

But besides all this, saying that you yourself never opposed the creation of a unified Legal Code -- I don't have a reason not to believe you on this -- in no way refutes the fact that having a unified Legal Code was part of the Opposition manifesto as early as two months after Reunision, meaning more than a year prior to the passing of el Lexhatx, or that the party you were a member of was historically opposed to this endeavour.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I should note that I didn't say that the Baron personally opposed codification; but his party, the RUMP, did.

For those keeping track: here is the thread where I announce (on behalf of the then-Opposition parties) the programme of codification, a full year before the post linked above; and where Baron Hooligan (on behalf of the ruling RUMP party) comes in to argue against it.

Locking the thread now. We can continue either the historical discussion or the political debate elsewhere.